Antidepressant efficacy and tolerability of milnacipran, a dual serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor: a comparison with fluvoxamine

Psychiatric comorbidities and use of milnacipran in patients with chronic dizziness

BACKGROUND

Psychiatric comorbidities are an important issue in the treatment of chronic dizziness patients.

OBJECTIVE

To test the correlation between psychiatric status and subjective handicaps and to examine the effects of milnacipran on handicaps.

METHODS

Hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS) and handicaps were assessed by a questionnaire before and eight weeks after milnacipran treatment (50 mg/day) in 29 consecutive patients with chronic dizziness. Effects of milnaciplan were compared with fluvoxamine (200 mg/day).

RESULTS

A significant correlation was found between anxious and depressive scale scores and also between HADS and handicaps. Duration of symptoms was longer in the anxious/depressive group (HADS≧13) than in the non-anxious/depressive group. Handicaps and HADS were significantly decreased after treatment only in the anxious/depressive group. There were no overall differences in drug effects between milnaciplan and fluvoxamine. However, the rate of patients with a post/pre ratio of handicaps <80% was higher in milnaciplan group compared with the fluvoxamine group.

CONCLUSIONS

Not only anxiety disorders but also depression should be considered as comorbid psychiatric disorders in patients with chronic dizziness. Dizzy patients with psychiatric comorbidities have a longer duration of symptoms and more handicaps than those without psychiatric disorders. Milnacipran may be chosen as a treatment for patients with chronic dizziness with comorbid psychiatric disorders in case of and insufficient response to SSRIs.

Epidemiologic Evaluation of Cardiovascular Risk in Patients Receiving Milnacipran, Venlafaxine, or Amitriptyline: Evidence from French Health Data

BACKGROUND:

Milnacipran, a selective serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the management of fibromyalgia. It has been available for many years in several countries outside the US for the treatment of depression.

OBJECTIVE:

To conduct population-based analyses comparing the risk of serious cardiovascular (CV) events (eg, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, congestive heart failure) associated with treatment with milnacipran compared with venlafaxine and amitriptyline, 2 other commonly prescribed drugs that also inhibit reuptake of norepinephrine and serotonin.

METHODS:

Information from the French Thales electronic health record database from 2001 to 2007 was used. Patients with 1 or more prescriptions for milnacipran, venlafaxine, or amitriptyline; 180 or more days of continuous eligibility prior to the first prescription; and no prior CV event diagnoses during the 180-day baseline period were included. A retrospective, matched-cohort design was employed. The incidence rates of CV events between cohorts receiving milnacipran, venlafaxine, and amitriptyline were compared using unadjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) and adjusted conditional IRR based on Poisson regression.

RESULTS:

We identified 4452 milnacipran-venlafaxine and 3761 milnacipran-amitriptyline matched pairs. The matched cohorts had similar baseline characteristics. The unadjusted IRRs of any CV events, comparing milnacipran with venlafaxine or amitriptyline, were 1.02 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.44) and 1.30 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.89), respectively. Adjusted IRRs confirmed the statistical similarity in the CV event risk between milnacipran and venlafaxine (adjusted IRR = 1.29, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.17) or amitriptyline (adjusted IRR = 1.06, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.89).

CONCLUSIONS:

This French population-based study found that the risk of CV events was not significantly different for patients receiving milnacipran versus those receiving venlafaxine or amitriptyline.

Could agomelatine be the ideal antidepressant?

Depressive disorders are a common cause of chronic and recurrent psychiatric dysfunction, constituting the fourth leading cause of global diseases. Depression is associated with a high rate of morbidity and mortality, and is a leading cause of global disability. Despite the effectiveness of most currently available antidepressants, many of them have a number of undesirable side effects. Agomelatine is the first melatonin (MT)(1)/MT(2) agonist having 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT)(2C) and 5-HT(2B) antagonist properties and antidepressant activity. Agomelatine is effective in several animal models of depression and anxiety. In addition, three large, multicenter, multinational, placebo-controlled studies and several double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of agomelatine have demonstrated that it is a clinically effective and well-tolerated antidepressant in acute trials. Since currently available antidepressants are not always adequate to cause complete remission of symptoms in severely depressed patients, the superior rate of response achieved with agomelatine in this group of patients underlines its future for clinical use in depressive disorders. In summary, the clinical advantage of agomelatine is attributed to its novel mechanism of action, which helps not only to exert antidepressant action, but also to regulate the sleep-wake rhythm.

Open-label milnacipran for patients with persistent knee pain 1 year or longer after total knee arthroplasty: a pilot study

OBJECTIVE

The current study investigates whether milnacipran is effective in reducing pain and improving function in patients with persistent pain ≥ 1 year after total knee arthroplasty.

METHOD

This was a 12-week open-label study of flexibly dosed milnacipran in patients (N = 5) experiencing chronic persistent knee pain ≥ 1 year following total knee arthroplasty in the absence of new injury, infection, or implant failure. Subjects were identified from October 2010 to August 2011 through the Duke University Medical Center orthopedic clinic (Durham, North Carolina), typically during 1-year postoperative follow-up visits, and were referred by their orthopedic surgeon.

RESULTS

Milnacipran treatment was associated with reduction in pain according to the primary outcome measure of the visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain (effect size of 1.15) and secondary outcome measures of Knee Society Score (KSS) evaluation subscale score (effect size of 1.37) and Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) bodily pain subscale (effect size of 1.16) at week 12. Secondary outcome measures of functional change were mixed in such that, at week 12, the SF-36 physical functioning subscale showed improvement (effect size of 1.16), but the KSS function subscale score was just below the threshold for meaningful effect size (0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

Open-label milnacipran demonstrated reduced pain and some evidence of functional improvement in this small sample of patients with chronic persistent pain 1 year or more after total knee arthroplasty such that well-powered studies are warranted.

Double-blind, comparative study of milnacipran and paroxetine in Japanese patients with major depression

BACKGROUND AND 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.

CONCLUSION

These results demonstrate that milnacipran 100 mg/day and 200 mg/day is not inferior to paroxetine in terms of efficacy and safety.

Diabetes mellitus and comorbid depression: improvement of both diseases with milnacipran. A replication study (results of the Austrian Major Depression Diabetes Mellitus study group)

Comorbid depression is common in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and is associated with greater mortality risk and a higher incidence of diabetic complications and decreased quality of life. In an earlier pilot study, we found that treatment with the serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor antidepressant, milnacipran, significantly improved metabolic parameters in diabetic patients with comorbid depression who had an antidepressant response. We sought to replicate these results in a larger cohort (n = 135). Patients received milnacipran and metformin for 6 months and metabolic parameters and depressive symptoms were measured at baseline and after 3 and 6 months. At the end of the study, 72.6% of patients had an antidepressant response (≥50% reduction of baseline Beck Depression Inventory score). Overall, there was significant improvement in the metabolic and anthropometric parameters measured. The number of patients with glycated hemoglobin > 8% (>63.9 mmol/mol), an indicator of poor metabolic control requiring intensive therapeutic intervention, decreased from 31.9% at baseline to 11.9% during the study. As found in the pilot study, levels of total cholesterol and triglycerides were only significantly decreased in antidepressant responders. Body weight was significantly reduced in both responders and nonresponders but the effect size was significantly greater in the responder group. In contrast to the pilot study, fasting blood glucose and glycated hemoglobin were significantly decreased to a similar extent in both antidepressant-responders and nonresponders. The present study thus replicates some of the original findings. The main difference between the present and the pilot study is that in the larger cohort significant reductions in fasting blood glucose and glycated hemoglobin were found in all patients irrespective of whether or not they responded to antidepressant treatment. The present data underline the importance of diagnosis and treatment of comorbid depression in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with milnacipran.

Milnacipran: a unique antidepressant?

Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) are among the most effective antidepressants available, although their poor tolerance at usual recommended doses and toxicity in overdose make them difficult to use. While selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are better tolerated than TCAs, they have their own specific problems, such as the aggravation of sexual dysfunction, interaction with coadministered drugs, and for many, a discontinuation syndrome. In addition, some of them appear to be less effective than TCAs in more severely depressed patients. Increasing evidence of the importance of norepinephrine in the etiology of depression has led to the development of a new generation of antidepressants, the serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs). Milnacipran, one of the pioneer SNRIs, was designed from theoretic considerations to be more effective than SSRIs and better tolerated than TCAs, and with a simple pharmacokinetic profile. Milnacipran has the most balanced potency ratio for reuptake inhibition of the two neurotransmitters compared with other SNRIs (1:1.6 for milnacipran, 1:10 for duloxetine, and 1:30 for venlafaxine), and in some studies milnacipran has been shown to inhibit norepinephrine uptake with greater potency than serotonin (2.2:1). Clinical studies have shown that milnacipran has efficacy comparable with the TCAs and is superior to SSRIs in severe depression. In addition, milnacipran is well tolerated, with a low potential for pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions. Milnacipran is a first-line therapy suitable for most depressed patients. It is frequently successful when other treatments fail for reasons of efficacy or tolerability.

Fluvoxamine versus other anti-depressive agents for depression

BACKGROUND

Fluvoxamine, one of the oldest selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), is prescribed to patients with major depression in many countries. Several studies have previously reviewed the efficacy and tolerability of fluvoxamine for the treatment of major depression. However, these reviews are now outdated.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective is to evaluate the effectiveness, tolerability and side effect profile of fluvoxamine for major depression in comparison with other anti-depressive agents, including tricyclics (TCAs), heterocyclics, other SSRIs, SNRIs, other newer agents and other conventional psychotropic drugs.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register. Trial databases and ongoing trial registers in North America, Europe, Japan and Australia, were handsearched for randomised controlled trials. We checked reference lists of the articles included in the review, previous systematic reviews and major textbooks of affective disorder for published reports and citations of unpublished research. The date of last search was 31 August 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials, published in any language, that compared fluvoxamine with any other active antidepressants in the acute phase treatment of major depression.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent review authors inspected citations and abstracts, obtained papers, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We analysed dichotomous data using odds ratios (ORs) and continuous data using the standardised mean difference (SMD). A random effects model was used to combine studies.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 54 randomised controlled trials (n = 5122) were included. No strong evidence was found to indicate that fluvoxamine was either superior or inferior to other antidepressants regarding response, remission and tolerability. However, differing side effect profiles were evident, especially with regard to gastrointestinal side effects of fluvoxamine when compared to other antidepressants. For example, fluvoxamine was generally associated with a higher incidence of vomiting/nausea (versus imipramine, OR 2.23, CI 1.59 to 3.14; versus clomipramine, OR 2.13, CI 1.06 to 4.27; versus amitriptyline, OR 2.86, CI 1.31 to 2.63).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no strong evidence that fluvoxamine was either superior or inferior to any other antidepressants in terms of efficacy and tolerability in the acute phase treatment of depression. However, differing side effect profiles were evident. Based on these findings, we conclude that clinicians should focus on practical or clinically relevant considerations, including these differences in side effect profiles.

The effect of melatonergic and non-melatonergic antidepressants on sleep: weighing the alternatives

In DSM-IV the occurrence of disturbed sleep is one of the principal diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder (MDD). Further, there is evidence of reciprocity between the two conditions such that, even in the absence of current depressive symptoms, disturbed sleep often predicts their development. The present review discusses the effects of antidepressants on sleep and evaluates the use of the recently developed melatonin agonist-selective serotonin antagonists on sleep and depression. Although many antidepressants such as the tricyclics, monoamine oxidase inhibitors, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, several serotonin receptor antagonists and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have all been found successful in treating depression, their use is often associated with a disruptive effect on sleep. SSRIs, currently the most widely prescribed of the antidepressants, are well known for their instigation or exacerbation of insomnia. The recently introduced novel melatonin agonist and selective serotonin antagonist antidepressant, agomelatine, which has melatonin MT(1) and MT(2) receptor agonist and 5-HT(2c) antagonist properties, has been useful in treating patients with MDD. Its rapid onset of action and effectiveness in improving the mood of depressed patients has been attributed to its ability to improve sleep quality. These properties underline the use of melatonin analogues as a promising alternative for the treatment of depression.

Efficacy of milnacipran in the treatment of chronic pain syndromes

Abstract Eleven outpatients with chronic pain syndromes other than fibromyalgia were treated for 12 weeks with milnacipran, a novel serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor. The agent was administered at 50-150 mg/day, and the mean ± SD dose at 12 weeks or at the time drug treatment was stopped was 84.1 ± 32.2 mg/day. None of the patients met the DSM-IV criteria for a major depressive disorder. Abdominal, chest, back, arm, leg or glossal pain, or headache was involved. Pain was assessed clinically by means of a visual analog scale (VAS) before and 12 weeks after the start of milnacipran treatment, or at the time drug treatment was stopped. The mean ± SD decrease in VAS scores was 42.3 ± 31.6 (50.8 ± 49.2%). One patient discontinued treatment after 4 weeks because of nausea, whereas others tolerated the agent well. These results suggest that the use of milnacipran in patients with a variety of chronic pain syndromes is beneficial.

Milnacipran: beyond a role of antidepressant

Milnacipran is a serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) with negligible effects on any presynaptic or postsynaptic receptors. Milnacipran has unique pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics that distinguish it from the other marketed serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, venlafaxine, desvenlafaxine, and duloxetine such as equipotent serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibition and a linear dose-concentration trend at therapeutic doses. The half-life of milnacipran is approximately 8 hours. In addition, milnacipran does not inhibit the cytochrome P 450 system, indicating minimal propensity for drug-drug interactions. The antidepressant efficacy of milnacipran has been clearly established in a number of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials, and it has been widely used for treating major depressive disorder. Moreover, evidence suggests that milnacipran is effective and tolerable in the treatment of fibromyalgia and may have usefulness for fatigue and anxiety symptoms. The current paper reviews researches conducted to date that is relevant to the efficacy, tolerability, and mechanism of action of milnacipran in the treatment of depression, fibromyalgia, and other psychiatric syndromes. Future directions of research are also identified.

Milnacipran versus other antidepressive agents for depression

BACKGROUND

Although pharmacological and psychological interventions are both effective for major depression, antidepressant drugs are frequently used as first-line treatment in primary and secondary care settings. Milnacipran, a dual serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), is one of the antidepressant drugs that clinicians use for routine depression care.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence for the efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of milnacipran in comparison with tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), heterocyclics, SSRIs and other newer antidepressive agents in the acute-phase treatment of major depression.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety & Neurosis review group Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR-Studies and CCDANCTR-References) were electronically searched in August 2008. References of relevant trials and other reviews were also checked. Trial databases of the drug-approving agencies and ongoing clinical trial registers for all published and unpublished trials were hand-searched in 2007. All relevant authors were contacted for supplemental data. No language restriction was applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing milnacipran with any other active antidepressive agents (including non-conventional agents such as herbal products like hypericum) as monotherapy in the acute phase of major depression were selected.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently checked eligibility, assessed methodological quality and extracted data from the eligible trials using a standardised data extraction form. The number of participants who responded to treatment or those who achieved remission were calculated on an intention-to-treat basis. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted, combining data from the included trials.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 16 randomised controlled trials (n=2277) were included in the meta-analysis.Despite the size of this sample, the pooled 95% confidence intervals were rather wide and there were no statistically significant differences in efficacy, acceptability and tolerability when comparing milnacipran with other antidepressive agents. However, compared with TCAs, patients taking milnacipran were associated with fewer dropouts due to adverse events (OR 0.55; 95%CI 0.35 to 0.85). There was also some weak evidence to suggest that patients taking milnacipran experienced fewer adverse events of sleepiness/ drowsiness, dry mouth or constipation compared with TCAs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, there is inadequate evidence to conclude whether milnacipran is superior, inferior or the same as other antidepressive agents in terms of efficacy, acceptability and tolerability in the acute phase treatment of major depression. However, there is some evidence in favour of milnacipran over TCAs in terms of dropouts due to adverse events (acceptability) and the rates of experiencing adverse events (tolerability). Information about other clinically meaningful outcomes such as cost-effectiveness and social functioning, including the ability to return to work, is lacking. Further study is needed to answer whether milnacipran would be the better choice of antidepressant for acute major depression.

Milnacipran

Each month, subscribers to The Formulary Monograph Service receive 5 to 6 well-documented monographs on drugs that are newly released or are in late phase 3 trials. The monographs are targeted to Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committees. Subscribers also receive monthly 1-page summary monographs on agents that are useful for agendas and pharmacy/nursing inservices. A comprehensive target drug utilization evaluation (DUE) is also provided each month. With a subscription, the monographs are sent in print and are also available online. Monographs can be customized to meet the needs of a facility. Subscribers to The Formulary Monograph Service also receive access to a pharmacy bulletin board, The Formulary Information Exchange (The F.I.X.). All topics pertinent to clinical and hospital pharmacy are discussed on The F.I.X.

Through the cooperation of The Formulary, Hospital Pharmacy publishes selected reviews in this column. For more information about The Formulary Monograph Service or The F.I.X., call The Formulary at 800–322–4349. The July 2009 monograph topics are golimumab injection, tapentadol immediate-release tablets, iloperidone, benzyl alcohol 5% lotion, and artemether/lumefantrine. The DUE is on golimumab injection.

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 12 new-generation antidepressants: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Conventional meta-analyses have shown inconsistent results for efficacy of second-generation antidepressants. We therefore did a multiple-treatments meta-analysis, which accounts for both direct and indirect comparisons, to assess the effects of 12 new-generation antidepressants on major depression.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed 117 randomised controlled trials (25 928 participants) from 1991 up to Nov 30, 2007, which compared any of the following antidepressants at therapeutic dose range for the acute treatment of unipolar major depression in adults: bupropion, citalopram, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, milnacipran, mirtazapine, paroxetine, reboxetine, sertraline, and venlafaxine. The main outcomes were the proportion of patients who responded to or dropped out of the allocated treatment. Analysis was done on an intention-to-treat basis.

FINDINGS

Mirtazapine, escitalopram, venlafaxine, and sertraline were significantly more efficacious than duloxetine (odds ratios [OR] 1.39, 1.33, 1.30 and 1.27, respectively), fluoxetine (1.37, 1.32, 1.28, and 1.25, respectively), fluvoxamine (1.41, 1.35, 1.30, and 1.27, respectively), paroxetine (1.35, 1.30, 1.27, and 1.22, respectively), and reboxetine (2.03, 1.95, 1.89, and 1.85, respectively). Reboxetine was significantly less efficacious than all the other antidepressants tested. Escitalopram and sertraline showed the best profile of acceptability, leading to significantly fewer discontinuations than did duloxetine, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, reboxetine, and venlafaxine.

INTERPRETATION

Clinically important differences exist between commonly prescribed antidepressants for both efficacy and acceptability in favour of escitalopram and sertraline. Sertraline might be the best choice when starting treatment for moderate to severe major depression in adults because it has the most favourable balance between benefits, acceptability, and acquisition cost.

Diabetes mellitus and co-morbid depression: treatment with milnacipran results in significant improvement of both diseases (results from the Austrian MDDM study group)

Co-morbid depression is common in patients with diabetes mellitus and has a negative impact on diabetes self-care, adherence to treatment and the development of complications. Effective treatment of depression has been associated with improvement in metabolic parameters. We evaluated the feasibility of a two question screen for co-morbid depression in diabetic patients and studied the effect of the serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor antidepressant, milnacipran, on metabolic and psychological parameters in 64 type 2 diabetic patients with co-morbid depression. The severity of depression was evaluated using the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). Patients received milnacipran, and diabetes was treated according to the guidelines of the Austrian Diabetes Association in a 6-month open label study. Metabolic parameters and BDI were measured at baseline and after 1, 3 and 6 months. 46 patients satisfied the criteria for an antidepressant response (reduction of baseline BDI score of at least 50%). Hemoglobin A1c, fasting blood glucose, body mass index, total and LDL-cholesterol and serum triglyceride levels were all significantly decreased in these patients at the end of the study whereas in antidepressant non-responders these parameters were not significantly changed. Diagnosis and treatment of depression is an important factor for the improvement of metabolic control in patients with type 2 diabetes and co-morbid depression.

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.

Are antidepressant drugs that combine serotonergic and noradrenergic mechanisms of action more effective than the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in treating major depressive disorder? A meta-analysis of studies of newer agents

BACKGROUND

Recent studies suggest that the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) with newer antidepressant drugs that simultaneously enhance norepinephrine and serotonin neurotransmission might result in higher response and remission rates than the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). The goal of our work was to compare response rates among patients with MDD treated with either of these two broad categories of antidepressant drugs.

METHODS

Medline/Pubmed, EMBase, clinical trial registries, program syllabi from major psychiatric meetings held since 1995, and documents from relevant pharmaceutical companies were searched for double-blind, randomized trials comparing a newer serotonergic-noradrenergic antidepressant drug (venlafaxine, duloxetine, milnacipran, mirtazapine, mianserin, or moclobemide) with an SSRI for MDD.

RESULTS

Ninety-three trials (n = 17,036) were combined using a random-effects model. Treatment with serotonergic + noradrenergic antidepressant drugs was more likely to result in clinical response than the SSRIs (risk ratio [RR] = 1.059; response rates 63.6% versus 59.3%; p = .003). There was no evidence for heterogeneity among studies combined (p = 1.0). Excluding each individual agent did not significantly alter the pooled RR. With the exception of duloxetine (.985), RRs for response for each individual serotonergic + noradrenergic antidepressant drug were within the 95% confidence interval of the pooled RR (1.019-1.101).

CONCLUSIONS

Serotonergic-noradrenergic antidepressant drugs seem to have a modest efficacy advantage compared with SSRIs in MDD. With the Number Needed to Treat (NNT) statistic as one indicator of clinical significance, nearly 24 patients would need to be treated with dual-action antidepressant drugs instead of SSRIs in order to obtain one additional responder. This difference falls well below the mark of NNT = 10 suggested by the United Kingdom's National Institute of Clinical Excellence but nonetheless might be of public health relevance given the large number of depressed patients treated with SSRI /serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) antidepressant drugs. Further research is needed to examine whether larger differences between classes of antidepressant drugs might exist in specific MDD sub-populations or for specific MDD symptoms.

Which antidepressants have demonstrated superior efficacy? A review of the evidence

A review of published evidence of superior efficacy of a particular antidepressant in major depressive disorder may assist clinicians in making considered treatment choices. To identify such candidates, an international group of experts met to assess published evidence (identified through searches in Medline and Embase databases and discussions with experts in the field) from randomized, controlled trials and meta-analyses comparing two antidepressants under conditions of fair comparison. Criteria were defined to judge the strength of evidence. Two pivotal studies in moderate-to-severe major depressive disorder that demonstrate superiority on the primary efficacy measure, or alternatively one pivotal study supported by consistent results from meta-analyses, was considered to constitute evidence for definite superiority. Three antidepressants met these criteria: clomipramine, venlafaxine, and escitalopram. Three antidepressants were found to have probable superiority: milnacipran, duloxetine, and mirtazapine. Only escitalopram was found to have definite superiority in the treatment of severe depression; probable superiority was identified for venlafaxine and possible superiority for milnacipran and clomipramine. This review of published data found evidence that only a very few antidepressants are shown to be more effective than others.

Efficacy of agomelatine, a MT1/MT2 receptor agonist with 5-HT2C antagonistic properties, in major depressive disorder

Current antidepressants used in major depressive disorder (MDD) are still not efficacious enough for many patients due to high levels of treatment resistance and bothersome side-effects. Using a novel blinding method (interactive voice response system), this flexible-dosing study examined the effects of therapeutic doses of agomelatine, a new approach to depressive therapy offering potent melatonergic MT1/MT2 receptor agonism with 5-HT2C receptor antagonist properties, in patients with moderate-to-severe MDD. This 6-wk, double-blind, parallel-group study randomized 238 patients to 25 mg/d agomelatine (with dose adjustment at 2 wk to 50 mg/d in patients with insufficient improvement) or placebo. Depression severity was assessed using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) and the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale. Agomelatine was significantly more efficacious than placebo, with an agomelatine-placebo difference of 3.44 (p<0.001) using the HAMD final total score. Compared with placebo, agomelatine also had a significant positive impact on CGI - Improvement (treatment difference=0.45) and CGI - Severity (treatment difference=0.50) (both p=0.006), response rate (54.3% vs. 35.5% with placebo, p<0.05) and time to first response (p=0.008). Similar results were seen in patients with the most severe MDD. Depressed mood and sleep items of the HAMD were also significantly improved with agomelatine, which was well tolerated with a safety profile similar to placebo at both doses. This study confirms that agomelatine is effective in treating major depression, including the most severely depressed patients, with a good safety and tolerability profile, therefore providing physicians with an effective pharmacological approach to antidepressant therapy.

The burden of severe depression: a review of diagnostic challenges and treatment alternatives

Among the factors making recognition of severe depression problematic for clinicians are the heterogeneous nature of the condition, lack of standardized definitions, and concomitant comorbidities that confound differential diagnosis of symptoms. The spectrum of severity in depressive disorders is extraordinarily broad, and severity assessment is comprised of several metrics including symptom intensity, diagnostic subtypes, suicidality risk, and hospitalization status. The overall diagnosis is achieved through consideration of symptom types and severities together with the degree of functional impairment as assessed by the psychiatric interview. It is likely that no single fundamental neurobiological defect underlies severe depression. The chronicity and heterogeneity of this disorder lead to frequent clinic visits and a longer course of treatment; therefore, successful approaches may require an arsenal of treatments with numerous mechanisms of action. The categories of drugs used to treat severe depression are detailed herein, as are several non-pharmacologic options including a number of experimental treatments. Pharmacotherapies include tricyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, atypical antidepressants such as serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors and monoamine oxidase inhibitors, and combination and augmentation therapies. Drugs within each class are not equivalent, and efficacy may vary with symptom severity. Patient adherence makes tolerability another critical consideration in antidepressant choice. The role of non-pharmacological treatments such as electroconvulsive therapy, vagus nerve stimulation, transcranial magnetic stimulation, and deep brain stimulation remain active avenues of investigation. Improved knowledge and treatment approaches for severe depression are necessary to facilitate remission, the ideal treatment goal.

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.

A meta-analysis of clinical trials comparing milnacipran, a serotonin--norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor for the treatment of major depressive disorder

CONTEXT

Over the past few years, a number of studies have emerged suggesting that the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) with antidepressants which enhance both noradrenergic as well as serotonergic neurotransmission may result in higher response or remission rates than treatment with antidepressants which selectively enhance serotonergic neurotransmission.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this paper was to compare response rates among patients with MDD treated with either milnacipran, an antidepressant thought to simultaneously enhance both noradrenergic and serotonergic neurotransmission, or a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI).

DATA SOURCES

Medline/Pubmed were searched. No year of publication or language limits were used.

STUDY SELECTION

Double-blind, randomized clinical trials comparing milnacipran with an SSRI for the treatment of MDD.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data were extracted with the use of a pre-coded form.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Analyses were performed comparing response rates between the two antidepressant agents. Data from 6 reports involving a total of 1082 outpatients with MDD were identified and combined using a random-effects model. Patients randomized to treatment with milnacipran were as likely to experience clinical response as patients randomized to treatment with an SSRI according to the MADRS (RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.88-1.23, p = 0.533) or the HDRS (RR = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.90-1.24, p = 0.456) for the random effects model. Simply pooling MADRS-based response rates between the two agents revealed a 58.9% response rate for milnacipran and a 58.3% response rate for the SSRIs. Similarly, HDRS-based response rates were 59.7% and 57.5%. There was also no difference in overall discontinuation rates (RR = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.76-1.14; p = 0.506), the rate of discontinuation due to adverse events (RR = 0.77; 95% CI: 0.55-1.1; p = 0.157), or the rate of discontinuation due to inefficacy (RR = 0.98; 95% CI: 0.7-1.38; p = 0.95) between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that milnacipran and the SSRIs do not differ with respect to their overall efficacy in the treatment of MDD.

A comparative meta-analysis of Clinical Global Impressions change in antidepressant trials

Two scales of the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) Scale are frequently used in antidepressant trials. No research has systematically addressed how CGI change compares to change on established measures such as the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, or Beck Depression Inventory. The current meta-analysis examined 75 antidepressant trials in which the CGI was used along with at least one other popular depression measure. The CGI-Severity scale was significantly more conservative than the HAM-D in rating change in double-blind trials, but not in open trials. The Beck Depression Inventory was significantly more conservative than the CGI-Severity. The CGI-Improvement scale was significantly more liberal than the HAM-D or Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale. Rater bias or scale content may explain differences between measures. Given the often substantial differences between instruments, researchers should use a variety of measures rather than relying on any single tool in assessing treatment response.

Placebo-controlled trial of agomelatine in the treatment of major depressive disorder

The efficacy and safety of flexible dosing with the antidepressant agomelatine (25-50 mg/day) was evaluated in a 6-week, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study involving 212 patients who met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) criteria for major depressive disorder-current major depressive episode. Patients receiving agomelatine (25 mg and 50 mg/day) had a significantly lower mean Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) score at endpoint compared with those who received placebo (14.1 +/- 7.7 vs. 16.5 +/- 7.4, p = 0.026). Agomelatine significantly improved the response rate (49.1%; p = 0.03), time to first response (p = 0.032), and Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness score (p = 0.017), compared with placebo. These results were confirmed in a subgroup of patients with greater symptom severity. Agomelatine 50 mg also appeared to be effective and well tolerated in patients who failed to show improvement after 2 weeks on a dose of 25 mg/day. These results support the prescription of agomelatine 25 mg as the usual therapeutic dose, and suggest that increasing the dose to 50 mg may be beneficial for some patients without reducing tolerability.

Serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors: Logical evolution of antidepressant development

Although considerable progress has been made in improving the tolerability of antidepressant drugs, the classical tricyclic antidepressants (TCA) are still a standard for efficacy. The selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) are much better tolerated than the TCAs, but their antidepressant efficacy is, at best, equivalent and probably inferior to the TCA, clomipramine, in many situations. The introduction of the SSRIs naturally focussed both fundamental and clinical research effort on the role of serotonin (5-HT) in the pharmacogenesis and pharmacotherapy of depression. More recently the probable role of noradrenaline (NA) has been "rediscovered" and increasingly both 5-HT and NA dysfunctions are seen as fundamental to depressive illness. The therapeutic importance of this has been underlined by studies showing the increased antidepressant efficacy obtained when selective serotonergic drugs have been used in conjunction with selective noradrenergic drugs. The development of the new class of serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) was a logical extension of these ideas. Compounds of this class, which currently comprises venlafaxine, milnacipran and duloxetine, act to inhibit the reuptake of both monoamines with no direct actions at postsynaptic receptors. Although, by definition all three SNRIs have actions on both 5-HT and NA neurotransmission, they do not all have equal potency for both transmitters. Venlafaxine has a 30-fold higher affinity for 5-HT than NA while duloxetine has a 10-fold selectivity for 5-HT. Only milnacipran is balanced between the two neurotransmitters with an approximately equal potency for the inhibition of reuptake of 5-HT and NA both in vitro and in vivo. At high doses venlafaxine and duloxetine appear to be superior to SSRIs but not at lower doses. Duloxetine is, however, not licensed in the EU at these higher doses. Milnacipran at usual doses appears more effective than SSRIs with efficacy which is similar to TCAs but with a lower side effect burden.

Preclinical pharmacology of F-98214-TA, a novel potent serotonin and norepinephrine uptake inhibitor with antidepressant and anxiolytic properties

RATIONALE

Serotonin (5-HT) and norepinephrine (NE) re-uptake inhibitors (SNRIs) have been proposed to have a higher efficacy and/or faster onset of action than previously available antidepressants.

OBJECTIVES

We examined in biochemical, electrophysiological and behavioural assays the antidepressant properties of (S)-(-)-4-[(3-fluorophenoxy)-phenyl]methyl-piperidine (F-98214-TA), a compound that displays very high affinity for 5-HT and NE transporters.

RESULTS

F-98214-TA potently inhibited the uptake of both 5-HT and NE into rat brain synaptosomes (IC50 = 1.9 and 11.2 nM, respectively) and decreased the electrical activity of dorsal raphe serotonergic neurones (ED50 = 530.3 microg/kg i.v.), an effect completely abolished by the 5-HT(1A) antagonist WAY100,635. In acute behavioural assays in mice, the orally administered compound potentiated the 5-hydroxy-tryptophan (5-HTP)-induced syndrome [minimal effective dose (MED) = 10 mg/kg], antagonized the hypothermia induced by a high dose of apomorphine (ED50 = 2 mg/kg) and reduced the immobility in the tail suspension test (MED = 10 mg/kg). Moreover, it also decreased the immobility in the forced swimming test in mice and rats (30 mg/kg, p.o.). Chronic administration of F-98214-TA (14 days, 30 mg kg(-1) day(-1), p.o.) attenuated the hyperactivity induced by olfactory bulbectomy in rats, confirming its antidepressant-like properties. Interestingly, the same dosage regimen significantly increased the social interaction time in rats, suggesting an additional potential anxiolytic activity. In most assays the compound was more potent than fluoxetine, venlafaxine and desipramine.

CONCLUSIONS

F-98214-TA is a novel SNRI that displays greater potency than other reference antidepressants in animal models predictive of antidepressant and anxiolytic activities.

SNRIs: their pharmacology, clinical efficacy, and tolerability in comparison with other classes of antidepressants

The class of serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) now comprises three medications: venlafaxine, milnacipran, and duloxetine. These drugs block the reuptake of both serotonin (5-HT) and norepinephrine with differing selectivity. Whereas milnacipran blocks 5-HT and norepinephrine reuptake with equal affinity, duloxetine has a 10-fold selectivity for 5-HT and venlafaxine a 30-fold selectivity for 5-HT. All three SNRIs are efficacious in treating a variety of anxiety disorders. There is no evidence for major differences between SNRIs and SSRIs in their efficacy in treating anxiety disorders. In contrast to SSRIs, which are generally ineffective in treating chronic pain, all three SNRIs seem to be helpful in relieving chronic pain associated with and independent of depression. Tolerability of an SNRI at therapeutic doses varies within the class. Although no direct comparative data are available, venlafaxine seems to be the least well-tolerated, combining serotonergic adverse effects (nausea, sexual dysfunction, withdrawal problems) with a dose-dependent cardiovascular phenomenon, principally hypertension. Duloxetine and milnacipran appear better tolerated and essentially devoid of cardiovascular toxicity.

Effect of milnacipran on extracellular monoamine concentrations in the medial prefrontal cortex of rats pre-treated with lithium

Antidepressants are effective in most patients with depression, but sometimes have sub-optimal effects. Thus, there is a need to use more powerful antidepressants when dealing with treatment-resistant cases. Lithium carbonate is widely used for this purpose. We investigated the acute effects of milnacipran, a serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor, on extracellular serotonin, dopamine and noradrenaline concentrations, in the rat medial prefrontal cortex. The effects of milnacipran were examined in rats following 7 days of treatment with lithium, and in untreated controls. The lithium group had significantly greater basal levels of extracellular serotonin than the control group. Milnacipran (3 mg/kg) combined with lithium treatment caused a greater increase in extracellular noradrenaline and dopamine levels than milnacipran alone. Milnacipran (3 and 30 mg/kg) combined with lithium treatment also caused a greater increase in extracellular serotonin levels than milnacipran alone. Thus, lithium might augment the antidepressant effects of serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors by augmenting serotonin release.

Understanding pain in depression

A dysfunction of the serotonergic and noradrenergic pathways is commonly accepted as playing a major role in the aetiology of depression. Serotonergic cell bodies, located in the raphe nucleus, send projections to various parts of the brain where they are involved in the control of mood, movement, emotions such as anxiety and regulate behaviours such as eating, sexual activity and the feeling of pleasure. Similarly, the noradrenergic neurons, located in the locus coeruleus, project to the same regions where they regulate, in addition, attention and cognition. A further projection to the cerebellum regulates motor control. A dysfunction at the level of the monoamine neurons thus results in the classical symptoms of depression. In addition to these ascending pathways, however, the neurons in the raphe nucleus and the locus ceruleus also project to the spinal cord. These descending pathways serve to inhibit input from the intestines, the skeletal muscles and other sensory inputs. Under normal conditions, these inhibitory effects are modest, but in times of stress, in the interests of the survival of the individual, they can completely inhibit the input from painful stimuli. A dysfunction at the level of the serotonergic and noradrenergic neurons can thus affect both the ascending and descending pathways resulting in the psychological and somatic symptoms of depression but also in physical painful symptoms.

Effectiveness of Milnacipran for the Treatment of Chronic Pain

Milnacipran is a novel serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor. The authors describe the use of milnacipran for the treatment of chronic pain in a series of patients. There were 5 outpatients who suffered chronic pain for at least 3 months. None of these patients met the DSM-IV criteria for a major depressive disorder. Chronic pain was assessed clinically by means of a visual analog scale (VAS) before and 12 weeks after the start of the milnacipran treatment or at the time the drug was stopped. The duration of pain was 17.8 +/- 9.3 months (mean +/- SD), and the baseline VAS score was 88.2 +/- 6.3 points. Milnacipran was administered at 50 to 150 mg/day, and the dose at 12 weeks or at the time the drug was stopped was 85.0 +/- 31.3 mg/day. The mean +/- SD decrease in VAS at this time was 61.2 +/- 15.5%. Three patients showed marked improvement (decrease in VAS, >75%). Their decreases in VAS scores were 86.5%, 85.7%, and 77.6%. One patient showed mild improvement (42.0% decrease in VAS). These 4 patients tolerated the drug well. The fifth patient experienced nausea and discontinued treatment after 4 weeks. The VAS decrease for this patient was 14.3%. Results of this study show milnacipran to be beneficial in patients with chronic pain. This drug should be studied further for its effectiveness in the treatment of chronic pain.

Differential period of onset of action of fluvoxamine, paroxetine and milnacipran for depression

INTRODUCTION

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and dual serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) are the most commonly prescribed class of antidepressants, yet it is not known whether one is superior to another.

AIMS

The purpose of this clinical practice was to compare the periods of onset of action of fluvoxamine, paroxetine and milnacipran.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort analysis was carried out among out-patients with depression treated in the Department of Psychiatry, Kawasaki Medical School Hospital, Kurashiki, Japan, in 2000 and 2001. A total of 206 patients receiving fluvoxamine, paroxetine and milnacipran were identified.

RESULTS

The cumulative percentage of responders receiving milnacipran reached over 80% after 4 weeks, but it did reach this level for fluvoxamine or paroxetine until after 6 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

The differential period of onset of action should help guide clinicians in determining a suitable duration of antidepressants for depression.

Dual monoamine modulation for improved treatment of major depressive disorder

The worldwide scope of depressive illness and lack of fully effective pharmacotherapy mandates significant improvements in treatment paradigms. Current antidepressant medications remain limited by poor efficacy, slow onset of action, and untoward side effects. While the introduction of serotoninspecific reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) offered significant improvements in tolerability, no improvements in efficacy or speed of onset have been made relative to the traditional and poorly tolerated tricyclic antidepressants (TCA). The dominant efforts toward improving antidepressant medications are guided by cumulative evidence from neurochemical and clinical studies supporting the therapeutic potential of enhancing monoamine function in depression. A number of novel antidepressant drugs, including mirtazapine, milnacipran, venlafaxine, and duloxetine have been developed based on their interaction with both 5-HT and NE. Current clinical evidence suggests that these new agents may offer improved efficacy and/or faster onset of action compared with SSRIs and an improved side effect profile compared with TCAs. Potential neurobiological substrates mediating the enhanced antidepressant activity of dual reuptake inhibitors are discussed.

Determination of the dose of agomelatine, a melatoninergic agonist and selective 5-HT(2C) antagonist, in the treatment of major depressive disorder: a placebo-controlled dose range study

Agomelatine (S 20098) has a unique and new pharmacological profile. It is a melatoninergic agonist and selective antagonist of 5-HT2C receptors, and has been shown to be active in several animal models of depression. The aim of this study was to determine the active dose of agomelatine in the treatment of major depressive disorder (DSM-IV criteria). The methodology used was a conventional double-blind design comparing three different doses of agomelatine (1, 5 and 25 mg once a day) with placebo over an 8-week treatment period. Paroxetine was used as the study validator. Seven hundred and eleven patients with a baseline mean score of 27.4 on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) were included. On the pivotal analysis, the mean final HAM-D total score (Full Analysis Set LOCF) demonstrated agomelatine 25 mg to be statistically more effective than placebo. This was confirmed by other analyses and criteria (responders, remission, subpopulation of severely depressed patients, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness). Agomelatine 25 mg alleviated the anxiety associated with depression, as measured on Hamilton Anxiety Scale. Paroxetine was found to be effective on pivotal analysis and most of the secondary criteria used to validate the study methodology and population. Agomelatine, whatever the dose, showed good acceptability with a side-effects profile close to that of placebo. In conclusion, this study demonstrates that agomelatine is efficient in the treatment of major depressive disorder and that 25 mg is the target dose.

Dual serotonin and noradrenaline uptake inhibitor class of antidepressants potential for greater efficacy or just hype?

Preclinical and clinical studies support the rationale that development of single molecules, which would promote serotonergic and noradrenergic neurotransmission by inhibiting simultaneously the uptake of both monoamines, would potentially result in improved antidepressant drugs. Currently, the dual inhibitors of serotonin and noradrenaline uptake are venlafaxine, milnacipran and duloxetine. Based on the preclinical studies, the three drugs do show properties of inhibiting uptake of both monoamines in vitro and in vivo in the following order of decreasing potency: duloxetine, venlafaxine and milnacipran, and all exhibit low affinity at neuronal receptors of neurotransmitters, suggesting low side-effect potential. In double-blind, controlled studies, venlafaxine and milnacipran were repeatedly shown to be as efficacious as tricyclic antidepressant drugs in treating major depressive disorder, while one double-blind, placebo-controlled trial showed the antidepressant efficacy of duloxetine. Specifically designed comparative trials of dual uptake inhibitors against the other agents are needed to establish whether the dual uptake inhibitors show improvement in efficacy, rate of responders, antidepressive effects and/or remission.

Differential effects of milnacipran and fluvoxamine, especially in patients with severe depression and agitated depression: a case-control study

We attempted to compare the antidepressant efficacy of milnacipran and fluvoxamine in 202 outpatients with major depression, using the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS). Special attention was paid to the difference of responsiveness as a function of the severity of depression and individual HDRS factors. As a result, while no significant difference between the treatment groups was found overall, a positive response (50% or more decrease in total score from the baseline) was recorded significantly more often with milnacipran than fluvoxamine recipients whose baseline HDRS total score was greater than 19 points. Furthermore, there was a significant difference of response for the 'agitation' and 'insomnia' factors in favour of milnacipran. In both treatment groups, the incidence of adverse events, characteristic of tricyclic antidepressants such as dry mouth, constipation, somnolence and postural hypotension, was low. While complaints concerning the upper intestinal tract, such as epigastric distress, were predominant in the fluvoxamine group, urological complications and palpitations were reported only in the milnacipran group. In conclusion, we suggest that milnacipran is preferred to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for the treatment of depressed patients with agitation as well as severely depressed patients.