Treatment with venlafaxine extended release after SSRI nonresponse or intolerance: a randomized comparison of standard- and higher-dosing strategies

Moving from serotonin to serotonin-norepinephrine enhancement with increasing venlafaxine dose: clinical implications and strategies for a successful outcome in major depressive disorder

INTRODUCTION

Mental health disorders, especially depressive and anxiety disorders, are associated with substantial health-related burden. While the second-generation antidepressants are widely accepted as first-line pharmacological treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD), patient response to such treatment is variable, with more than half failing to achieve complete remission, and residual symptoms are frequently present.

AREAS COVERED

Here, the pharmacodynamics of venlafaxine XR are reviewed in relation to its role as both a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) and a serotonin-norepinephrine-reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), and we look at how these pharmacodynamic properties can be harnessed to guide clinical practice, asking the question 'is it possible to develop a symptom-cluster-based approach to the treatment of MDD with comorbid anxiety utilizing venlafaxine XR?.' Additionally, three illustrative clinical cases provide practical examples of the utility of venlafaxine-XR in real-world clinical practice. The place of venlafaxine XR in managing fatigue/low energy, a frequent residual symptom in MDD, is explored using pooled data from clinical trials of venlafaxine XR.

EXPERT OPINION

Venlafaxine XR should be considered as a first-line treatment for MDD with or without comorbid anxiety, and there are clear pharmacodynamic signals supporting a symptom cluster-based treatment paradigm for venlafaxine XR.

Chronic treatment with escitalopram and venlafaxine affects the neuropeptide S pathway differently in adult Wistar rats exposed to maternal separation

Neuropeptide S (NPS), which is a peptide that is involved in the regulation of the stress response, seems to be relevant to the mechanism of action of antidepressants that have anxiolytic properties. However, to date, there have been no reports regarding the effect of long-term treatment with escitalopram or venlafaxine on the NPS system under stress conditions. This study aimed to investigate the effects of the above-mentioned antidepressants on the NPS system in adult male Wistar rats that were exposed to neonatal maternal separation (MS). Animals were exposed to MS for 360 min. on postnatal days (PNDs) 2-15. MS causes long-lasting behavioral, endocrine and neurochemical consequences that mimic anxiety- and depression-related features. MS and non-stressed rats were given escitalopram or venlafaxine (10mg/kg) IP from PND 69 to 89. The NPS system was analyzed in the brainstem, hypothalamus, amygdala and anterior olfactory nucleus using quantitative RT-PCR and immunohistochemical methods. The NPS system was vulnerable to MS in the brainstem and amygdala. In the brainstem, escitalopram down-regulated NPS and NPS mRNA in the MS rats and induced a tendency to reduce the number of NPS-positive cells in the peri-locus coeruleus. In the MS rats, venlafaxine insignificantly decreased the NPSR mRNA levels in the amygdala and a number of NPSR cells in the basolateral amygdala, and increased the NPS mRNA levels in the hypothalamus. Our data show that the studied antidepressants affect the NPS system differently and preliminarily suggest that the NPS system might partially mediate the pharmacological effects that are induced by these drugs.

Tolerability of High-Dose Venlafaxine After Switch From Escitalopram in Nonresponding Patients With Major Depressive Disorder

BACKGROUND

Within a single depressive episode, most patients receive different antidepressants because of an inadequate response to the first-line antidepressant. A commonly used strategy is to switch from a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor to a selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor. However, little is known about the tolerability of this switch with consideration of dose and drug concentration in blood.

METHODS

After 4 weeks of inadequate response to escitalopram (10-20 mg/d), medication was switched to another 4 weeks of venlafaxine (VF, 150-375 mg/d) in 234 depressed patients. Serum concentrations, depression severity, and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were assessed weekly.

RESULTS

The switch of medication led to an increase of ADRs such as reduced salivation (+11%), orthostatic dizziness (+11%), and sweating (+9.8%). The most frequent ADRs during treatment with VF were reduced salivation (28.6%), sweating (24.6%), and orthostatic dizziness (15.8%). In patients receiving high-dose VF, a significant improvement of depressive symptomatology was observed, and most ADRs decreased during the course of treatment, even in patients above the therapeutic reference range.

LIMITATIONS

Patients and physicians were aware of medication, and there was no direct comparison with the herein presented switch of medication.

IMPLICATIONS

This study provides important information about the tolerability of a commonly used antidepressant treatment strategy. More detailed information about putative ADRs may help clinicians increase compliance through effective patient education. Because ADRs of VF were associated with the plasma concentration, therapeutic drug monitoring is recommended to guide the therapy and manage problems of tolerability.

Pharmacological interventions for treatment-resistant depression in adults

BACKGROUND

Although antidepressants are often a first-line treatment for adults with moderate to severe depression, many people do not respond adequately to medication, and are said to have treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Little evidence exists to inform the most appropriate 'next step' treatment for these people.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of standard pharmacological treatments for adults with TRD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR) (March 2016), CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science (31 December 2018), the World Health Organization trials portal and ClinicalTrials.gov for unpublished and ongoing studies, and screened bibliographies of included studies and relevant systematic reviews without date or language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with participants aged 18 to 74 years with unipolar depression (based on criteria from DSM-IV-TR or earlier versions, International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10, Feighner criteria or Research Diagnostic Criteria) who had not responded to a minimum of four weeks of antidepressant treatment at a recommended dose. Interventions were: (1) increasing the dose of antidepressant monotherapy; (2) switching to a different antidepressant monotherapy; (3) augmenting treatment with another antidepressant; (4) augmenting treatment with a non-antidepressant. All were compared with continuing antidepressant monotherapy. We excluded studies of non-standard pharmacological treatments (e.g. sex hormones, vitamins, herbal medicines and food supplements).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers used standard Cochrane methods to extract data, assess risk of bias, and resolve disagreements. We analysed continuous outcomes with mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated a relative risk (RR) and 95% CI. Where sufficient data existed, we conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 RCTs (2731 participants). Nine were conducted in outpatient settings and one in both in- and outpatients. Mean age of participants ranged from 42 - 50.2 years, and most were female. One study investigated switching to, or augmenting current antidepressant treatment with, another antidepressant (mianserin). Another augmented current antidepressant treatment with the antidepressant mirtazapine. Eight studies augmented current antidepressant treatment with a non-antidepressant (either an anxiolytic (buspirone) or an antipsychotic (cariprazine; olanzapine; quetiapine (3 studies); or ziprasidone (2 studies)). We judged most studies to be at a low or unclear risk of bias. Only one of the included studies was not industry-sponsored. There was no evidence of a difference in depression severity when current treatment was switched to mianserin (MD on Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) = -1.8, 95% CI -5.22 to 1.62, low-quality evidence)) compared with continuing on antidepressant monotherapy. Nor was there evidence of a difference in numbers dropping out of treatment (RR 2.08, 95% CI 0.94 to 4.59, low-quality evidence; dropouts 38% in the mianserin switch group; 18% in the control). Augmenting current antidepressant treatment with mianserin was associated with an improvement in depression symptoms severity scores from baseline (MD on HAM-D -4.8, 95% CI -8.18 to -1.42; moderate-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in numbers dropping out (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.72; low-quality evidence; 19% dropouts in the mianserin-augmented group; 38% in the control). When current antidepressant treatment was augmented with mirtazapine, there was little difference in depressive symptoms (MD on Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) -1.7, 95% CI -4.03 to 0.63; high-quality evidence) and no evidence of a difference in dropout numbers (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.62; dropouts 2% in mirtazapine-augmented group; 3% in the control). Augmentation with buspirone provided no evidence of a benefit in terms of a reduction in depressive symptoms (MD on Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) -0.30, 95% CI -9.48 to 8.88; low-quality evidence) or numbers of drop-outs (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.53; low-quality evidence; dropouts 11% in buspirone-augmented group; 19% in the control). Severity of depressive symptoms reduced when current treatment was augmented with cariprazine (MD on MADRS -1.50, 95% CI -2.74 to -0.25; high-quality evidence), olanzapine (MD on HAM-D -7.9, 95% CI -16.76 to 0.96; low-quality evidence; MD on MADRS -12.4, 95% CI -22.44 to -2.36; low-quality evidence), quetiapine (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.18; I2 = 6%, high-quality evidence), or ziprasidone (MD on HAM-D -2.73, 95% CI -4.53 to -0.93; I2 = 0, moderate-quality evidence) compared with continuing on antidepressant monotherapy. However, a greater number of participants dropped out when antidepressant monotherapy was augmented with an antipsychotic (cariprazine RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.41; quetiapine RR 1.57, 95% CI: 1.14 to 2.17; ziprasidone RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.55) compared with antidepressant monotherapy, although estimates for olanzapine augmentation were imprecise (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.69). Dropout rates ranged from 10% to 39% in the groups augmented with an antipsychotic, and from 12% to 23% in the comparison groups. The most common reasons for dropping out were side effects or adverse events. We also summarised data about response and remission rates (based on changes in depressive symptoms) for included studies, along with data on social adjustment and social functioning, quality of life, economic outcomes and adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A small body of evidence shows that augmenting current antidepressant therapy with mianserin or with an antipsychotic (cariprazine, olanzapine, quetiapine or ziprasidone) improves depressive symptoms over the short-term (8 to 12 weeks). However, this evidence is mostly of low or moderate quality due to imprecision of the estimates of effects. Improvements with antipsychotics need to be balanced against the increased likelihood of dropping out of treatment or experiencing an adverse event. Augmentation of current antidepressant therapy with a second antidepressant, mirtazapine, does not produce a clinically important benefit in reduction of depressive symptoms (high-quality evidence). The evidence regarding the effects of augmenting current antidepressant therapy with buspirone or switching current antidepressant treatment to mianserin is currently insufficient. Further trials are needed to increase the certainty of these findings and to examine long-term effects of treatment, as well as the effectiveness of other pharmacological treatment strategies.

Venlafaxine ER Blocks the Norepinephrine Transporter in the Brain of Patients with Major Depressive Disorder: a PET Study Using [18F]FMeNER-D2

BACKGROUND

The in vivo binding of clinical dose of venlafaxine on norepinephrine transporter has been questioned because venlafaxine has higher in vitro affinity to serotonin transporter than that to norepinephrine transporter. Although serotonin transporter occupancy of clinically relevant doses of venlafaxine has been reported, there has been no report of norepinephrine transporter occupancy in the human brain.

METHODS

This was an open-label, single center, exploratory positron emission tomography study. Twelve major depressive disorder patients who had responded to venlafaxine extended-release and 9 control subjects were recruited. Each subject participated in one positron emission tomography measurement with [18F]FMeNER-D2. Binding potential in brain was quantified by the area under the curve ratio method with thalamus as target and white matter as reference regions. The difference of binding potential values between control and patient groups divided to 2 dose ranges were evaluated. Norepinephrine transporter occupancy (%) for all the major depressive disorder patients was calculated using mean binding potential of control subjects as baseline. The relationships between dose or plasma concentration of total active moiety and occupancies of norepinephrine transporter were also estimated.

RESULTS

The binding potential of the patient group with 150 to 300 mg/d was significantly lower than that in the control subjects group (P = .0004 < .05/2). The norepinephrine transporter occupancy (8-61%) increased in a dose-dependent manner although a clear difference beyond 150 mg/d was not observed.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that clinically relevant doses of venlafaxine extended-release block the norepinephrine transporter of the major depressive disorder patient's brain. The data support the notion that the antidepressant effect of venlafaxine involves a combination of serotonin transporter and norepinephrine transporter blockades.

The influence of aripiprazole and venlafaxine on the antidepressant-like effect observed in prenatally stressed rats (animal model of depression)

Depression is a nosological entity which may appear alone or concomitantly (e.g. in schizophrenia). Analysis of data from both clinical and experimental studies allows a conclusion that atypical antipsychotics, such as aripiprazole (ARI), may also be effective in treating depression in addition to antidepressants. The aim of the studies was to determine antidepressant efficacy of ARI, venlafaxine (VEN) and combined therapy using both drugs, in prenatally stressed rats (animal depression model) and control group. In addition, this article was aimed at determining the effect of these drugs on locomotor activity of these animals. The effect of chronic stress used in pregnant rats and the use of drugs such as ARI (1.5 mg/kg) and VEN (20 mg/kg) were studied in forced swimming test (FST; antidepressant effect) and locomotor activity test. Performed tests confirmed the antidepressant effect of ARI, VEN and efficacy of combined drugs in FST in both prenatally stressed rats (effect present upon single administration and after 7, 14 and 21 days of testing) and control group rats (effect present upon single administration and 7 days of testing). Moreover, upon single administration of the used drugs to prenatally stressed rats, it was found sedative effect - reduced animals' locomotor activity. Study results have proven antidepressant and sedative efficacy of ARI, VEN and combined administration of these drugs. Due to the small amount of data on the above preparations, in particular in the context of animal depression models, further studies in this respect are recommended.

Higher patient satisfaction with antidepressants correlates with earlier drug release dates across online user-generated medical databases

Studies establishing the use of new antidepressants often rely simply on proving efficacy of a new compound, comparing against placebo and single compound. The advent of large online databases in which patients themselves rate drugs allows for a new Big Data–driven approach to compare the efficacy and patient satisfaction with sample sizes exceeding previous studies. Exemplifying this approach with antidepressants, we show that patient satisfaction with a drug anticorrelates with its release date with high significance, across different online user‐driven databases. This finding suggests that a systematic reevaluation of current, often patent‐protected drugs compared to their older predecessors may be helpful, especially given that the efficacy of newer agents relative to older classes of antidepressants such as monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) is as yet quantitatively unexplored.

Study protocol for a randomised pragmatic trial comparing the clinical and cost effectiveness of lithium and quetiapine augmentation in treatment resistant depression (the LQD study)

BACKGROUND

Approximately 30-50% of patients with major depressive disorder can be classed as treatment resistant, widely defined as a failure to respond to two or more adequate trials of antidepressants in the current episode. Treatment resistant depression is associated with a poorer prognosis and higher mortality rates. One treatment option is to augment an existing antidepressant with a second agent. Lithium and the atypical antipsychotic quetiapine are two such add-on therapies and are currently recommended as first line options for treatment resistant depression. However, whilst neither treatment has been established as superior to the other in short-term studies, they have yet to be compared head-to-head in longer term studies, or with a superiority design in this patient group.

METHODS

The Lithium versus Quetiapine in Depression (LQD) study is a parallel group, multi-centre, pragmatic, open-label, patient randomised clinical trial designed to address this gap in knowledge. The study will compare the clinical and cost effectiveness of the decision to prescribe lithium or quetiapine add-on therapy to antidepressant medication for patients with treatment resistant depression. Patients will be randomised 1:1 and followed up over 12 months, with the hypothesis being that quetiapine will be superior to lithium. The primary outcomes will be: (1) time to all-cause treatment discontinuation over one year, and (2) self-rated depression symptoms rated weekly for one year via the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology. Other outcomes will include between group differences in response and remission rates, quality of life, social functioning, cost-effectiveness and the frequency of serious adverse events and side effects.

DISCUSSION

The trial aims to help shape the treatment pathway for patients with treatment resistant depression, by determining whether the decision to prescribe quetiapine is superior to lithium. Strengths of the study include its pragmatic superiority design, broad inclusion criteria (external validity) and longer follow up than previous studies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN16387615 , registered 28 February 2016. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03004521 , registered 17 November 2016.

Raising the Minimum Effective Dose of Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor Antidepressants: Adverse Drug Events

This review focuses on the dose-response of serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SRI) antidepressants for efficacy and for adverse drug events (ADEs). Dose-response is identified by placebo-controlled, double-blind, fixed-dose clinical trials comparing various doses for efficacy and for ADEs. Reports from the great majority of clinical trials have consistently found that the minimum SRI effective dose is usually optimal for efficacy in the treatment of depression disorders, even though most American medical practitioners raise the dose when early antidepressant treatment results are negative or partial. To better understand this issue, the medical literature was comprehensively reviewed to ascertain the degree to which SRI medications resulted in a flat dose response for efficacy and then to identify specific ADEs that are dose-dependent. Strong evidence from fixed-dose trial data for the efficacy of nonascendant, minimum effective doses of SRIs was found for the treatment of both major depression and anxiety disorders. Particularly important was the finding that most SRI ADEs have an ascending dose-response curve. These ADEs include sexual dysfunction, hypertension, cardiac conduction risks, hyperglycemia, decreased bone density, sweating, withdrawal symptoms, and agitation. Thus, routinely raising the SRI dose above the minimum effective dose for efficacy can be counter-productive.

Efficacy and tolerability of switching therapy to vortioxetine versus other antidepressants in patients with major depressive disorder

OBJECTIVES

To assess the relative efficacy and tolerability of vortioxetine against different antidepressant monotherapies in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) with inadequate response to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) therapy.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted for monotherapy studies in patients with MDD with inadequate response to first-line therapy. Treatments included SSRIs, SNRIs, and other antidepressants. Identified studies underwent a three-stage screening/data extraction process and critical appraisal. Adjusted indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) on systematic literature review outputs were made using Bucher's method, comparing remission rates and withdrawal rates due to adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Of 27 studies meeting the inclusion criteria, a few studies were of high quality according to the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence checklist. Three studies contributed to an evidence network for quantitative assessment comparing vortioxetine with agomelatine, sertraline, venlafaxine XR, and bupropion SR. Vortioxetine had a statistically significantly higher remission rate than agomelatine (risk difference [RD]: -11.0% [95% CI: -19.4; -2.6]), and numerically higher remission rates than sertraline (RD: -14.4% [95% CI: -29.9; 1.1]), venlafaxine (RD: -7.20% [95% CI: -24.3; 9.9]), and bupropion (RD: -10.70% [95% CI: -27.8; 6.4]). Withdrawal rates due to AEs were statistically significantly lower for vortioxetine than sertraline (RD: 12.1% [95% CI: 3.1; 21.1]), venlafaxine XR (RD: 12.3% [95% CI: 0.8; 23.8]), and bupropion SR (RD: 18.3% [95% CI: 6.4; 30.1]).

CONCLUSIONS

The current systematic literature review found a few high quality switch studies assessing monotherapies in patients with MDD with inadequate response to SSRI/SNRIs. ITCs indicated that switching to vortioxetine leads to numerically higher remission rates compared with other antidepressants. Vortioxetine is a well tolerated treatment, showing statistically lower withdrawal rates due to AEs compared with other antidepressants. Vortioxetine is a relevant therapeutic alternative in patients experiencing inadequate response to prior SSRI or SNRI therapy.

[Sequential prescriptions: Arguments for a change of therapeutic patterns in treatment resistant depressions]

Among the therapeutic strategies in treatment of resistant depression, the use of sequential prescriptions is discussed here. A number of observations, initially quite isolated and few controlled studies, some large-scale, have been reported, which showed a definite therapeutic effect of certain requirements in sequential treatment of depression. The Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression Study (STAR*D) is up to now the largest clinical trial exploring treatment strategies in non psychotic resistant depression in real-life conditions with an algorithm of sequential decision. The main conclusions of this study are the following: after two unsuccessful attempts, the chance of remission decreases considerably. A 12-months follow-up showed that the higher the use of the processing steps were high, the more common the relapses were during this period. The pharmacological differences between psychotropic did not cause clinically significant difference. The positive effect of lithium in combination with antidepressants has been known since the work of De Montigny. Antidepressants allow readjustment of physiological sequence involving different monoaminergic systems together. Studies with tricyclic antidepressant-thyroid hormone T3: in depression, decreased norepinephrine at the synaptic receptors believed to cause hypersensitivity of these receptors. Thyroid hormones modulate the activity of adrenergic receptors. There would be a balance of activity between alpha and beta-adrenergic receptors, depending on the bioavailability of thyroid hormones. ECT may in some cases promote pharmacological response in case of previous resistance, or be effective in preventing relapse. Cognitive therapy and antidepressant medications likely have an effect on different types of depression. We can consider the interest of cognitive therapy in a sequential pattern after effective treatment with an antidepressant effect for treatment of residual symptoms, preventing relapses and recurrences, in antidepressant maintenance. These data support the interest of therapeutic strategies based on evolutionary criteria. Sequential models inspired by statistical methods may incorporate the effects of a future treatment by measuring the current one.

Managing inadequate antidepressant response in depressive illness

INTRODUCTION OR BACKGROUND

Depression frequently fails to respond to initial treatment.

SOURCES OF DATA

Predominantly meta-analyses and RCTs but supplemented where necessary by additional data and the authors' clinical experience.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

A systematic assessment to identify remedial causes of poor response should be followed by planned sequential treatment trials. Joint decision making by the patient and clinician is essential. Strategies with the strongest support are antidepressant augmentation with lithium or second generation antipsychotics and adding cognitive behavioural treatment. Electroconvulsive therapy is highly effective in resistant depression but there is a high relapse rate when treatment ends.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

Some pharmacological strategies have inconsistent data (e.g. antidepressant combinations, T3 augmentation) or limited preliminary data (e.g. ketamine, antidepressant augmentation with pramipexole). The efficacy of vagus nerve stimulation, deep brain stimulation and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation is unclear.

GROWING POINTS

A greater understanding of the causes of depression may assist the development of more effective treatments.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

Role of glutamate antagonists and psychological treatments, other than cognitive behavioural therapy, as adjunctive treatments.

THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CLINICAL PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY SURVEY OF PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGISTS' PRACTICE PATTERNS FOR THE TREATMENT OF MOOD DISORDERS

BACKGROUND

Optimal successive treatment decisions are not well established after an initial medication nonresponse in major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder. While practice guidelines offer consensus-based expert treatment recommendations, little is known about "real world" pharmacology decision making by practicing psychopharmacologists.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We surveyed via Internet the national membership of the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology (ASCP) to study preferred pharmacotherapy strategies and factors that influence medication choices for patients with mood disorders.

RESULTS

Surveys were returned by 154/752 ASCP members (21%). After nonresponse to a serotonin reuptake inhibitor in major depressive disorder, participants equally favored switching within or across antidepressant classes. After a partial response, adjunctive bupropion was the preferred intervention, followed by changing antidepressant classes. Atypical antipsychotic augmentation was only a fourth-line consideration, even though moderate or marked efficacy was perceived in most instances with olanzapine, aripiprazole, and quetiapine. Respondents favored avoiding antidepressants in bipolar I patients with mixed/cycling features or prior antidepressant-associated mania/hypomania. In rapid cyclers, they advocated antidepressant cessation and preferred the use of atypical antipsychotics and lamotrigine.

CONCLUSIONS

Participating psychopharmacologists treating adults with mood disorders report prescribing medications that largely mirror the evidence base with only a few notable exceptions, in consideration of the characteristics of definable clinical subpopulations.

Evidence-based guidelines for treating depressive disorders with antidepressants: A revision of the 2008 British Association for Psychopharmacology guidelines

A revision of the 2008 British Association for Psychopharmacology evidence-based guidelines for treating depressive disorders with antidepressants was undertaken in order to incorporate new evidence and to update the recommendations where appropriate. A consensus meeting involving experts in depressive disorders and their management was held in September 2012. Key areas in treating depression were reviewed and the strength of evidence and clinical implications were considered. The guidelines were then revised after extensive feedback from participants and interested parties. A literature review is provided which identifies the quality of evidence upon which the recommendations are made. These guidelines cover the nature and detection of depressive disorders, acute treatment with antidepressant drugs, choice of drug versus alternative treatment, practical issues in prescribing and management, next-step treatment, relapse prevention, treatment of relapse and stopping treatment. Significant changes since the last guidelines were published in 2008 include the availability of new antidepressant treatment options, improved evidence supporting certain augmentation strategies (drug and non-drug), management of potential long-term side effects, updated guidance for prescribing in elderly and adolescent populations and updated guidance for optimal prescribing. Suggestions for future research priorities are also made.

Use of serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors in the treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in pediatrics

OBJECTIVE

To review the current literature on the efficacy and safety of serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors in the treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in the pediatric population.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search from 1996 to August 2013 was conducted using MEDLINE, CINAHL, and EMBASE databases. Search terms included attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, pediatric attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, venlafaxine, duloxetine, desvenlafaxine, milnacipran, and nefazodone.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Relevant articles on duloxetine and venlafaxine for the treatment of pediatric ADHD were reviewed; 5 studies on venlafaxine and 1 study on duloxetine were evaluated. Studies included open-label and randomized, double-blind trials. Case studies in pediatric populations and all studies in adult populations were excluded.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Patients 6 to 17 years old were evaluated in the venlafaxine and duloxetine studies. Trials on venlafaxine, ranging from 2 to 6 weeks, showed patient improvement as measured by the Conners Rating Scale and ADHD Rating Scale. Venlafaxine was initiated at 12.5 to 25 mg/d and titrated up to 1.4 to 3.8 mg/kg/d to a maximum of 150 mg/d. Duloxetine showed minimal efficacy in treating ADHD symptoms at doses of 60 mg/d at 6 weeks. The most common side effects for venlafaxine and duloxetine included drowsiness and decreased appetite, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Data for venlafaxine and duloxetine are limited. However, venlafaxine may be considered as an alternative agent when patients cannot tolerate or fail stimulants, tricyclic antidepressants, or bupropion. Duloxetine has been studied in children; however, with only 1 study available, it is difficult to recommend.

A review of the adverse effects and safety of noradrenergic antidepressants

There are a variety of noradrenergic antidepressants available, most of which act by inhibiting neuronal noradrenaline re-uptake, although few drugs are specific for this action. Where drugs have numerous actions the adverse effects of noradrenaline reuptake may be difficult to isolate, although in this respect the adverse effects of reboxetine, a specific noradrenaline re-uptake inhibitor, are illuminating. Noradrenergic antidepressants typically cause minor changes in blood and heart rate, sweating and insomnia. Other pharmacological actions shown by non-specific antidepressants may act to worsen or mitigate these adverse effects. Noradrenergic drugs are less likely than selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) to cause sexual dysfunction but more likely to cause urinary hesitancy. Doubts remain over the relative propensity for antidepressants with different modes of action to cause diabetes and hyponatraemia. Noradrenergic actions do not seem to confer a risk of death in overdose.

World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) guidelines for biological treatment of unipolar depressive disorders, part 1: update 2013 on the acute and continuation treatment of unipolar depressive disorders

OBJECTIVES

This 2013 update of the practice guidelines for the biological treatment of unipolar depressive disorders was developed by an international Task Force of the World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP). The goal has been to systematically review all available evidence pertaining to the treatment of unipolar depressive disorders, and to produce a series of practice recommendations that are clinically and scientifically meaningful based on the available evidence. The guidelines are intended for use by all physicians seeing and treating patients with these conditions.

METHODS

The 2013 update was conducted by a systematic update literature search and appraisal. All recommendations were approved by the Guidelines Task Force.

RESULTS

This first part of the guidelines (Part 1) covers disease definition, classification, epidemiology, and course of unipolar depressive disorders, as well as the management of the acute and continuation phase treatment. It is primarily concerned with the biological treatment (including antidepressants, other psychopharmacological medications, electroconvulsive therapy, light therapy, adjunctive and novel therapeutic strategies) of adults.

CONCLUSIONS

To date, there is a variety of evidence-based antidepressant treatment options available. Nevertheless there is still a substantial proportion of patients not achieving full remission. In addition, somatic and psychiatric comorbidities and other special circumstances need to be more thoroughly investigated. Therefore, further high-quality informative randomized controlled trials are urgently needed.

Pharmacological treatment of unipolar depression

Antidepressants were first developed serendipitously 60 years ago and gave rise to the monoamine hypothesis of depression and antidepressant action which has persisted in various forms ever since. Although we have made huge strides in our understanding of the pharmacology of antidepressants, and in the neuroscience of depression, our current antidepressants have changed little since the original drugs. In this chapter I first review some controversies in the use of antidepressant drugs including whether they actually work, and then go on to describe the current state of our clinical use of antidepressants, looking both at the principles and practice of treatment and reviewing the evidence for efficacy, tolerability and safety in acute and sequenced treatments. I finally briefly consider future directions and the aspiration of developing more effective antidepressants.

Remission with venlafaxine extended release or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in depressed patients: a randomized, open-label study

BACKGROUND

This randomized, open-label, rater-blinded, multicenter study compared treatment outcomes with the serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) venlafaxine extended release (ER) with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in primary care patients with major depressive disorder.

METHOD

Study data were collected from November 29, 2000, to March 4, 2003. Outpatients who met diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder according to the Mental Health Screener, a computer-administered telephone interview program that screens for the most common mental disorders, and had a total score on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS(17)) ≥ 20 were randomly assigned to receive up to 6 months of open-label venlafaxine ER 75-225 mg/d (n = 688) or an SSRI (n = 697): fluoxetine 20-80 mg/d, paroxetine 20-50 mg/d, citalopram 20-40 mg/d, and sertraline 50-200 mg/d. The primary outcome was remission (HDRS(17) score ≤ 7) at study end point using the last-observation-carried-forward method to account for early termination. A mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis evaluated secondary outcome measures.

RESULTS

Fifty-one percent of patients completed the study. Month 6 remission rates did not differ significantly for venlafaxine ER and the SSRIs (35.5% vs 32.0%, respectively; P = .195). The MMRM analysis of HDRS(17) scores also did not differ significantly (P = .0538). Significant treatment effects favoring the venlafaxine ER group were observed for remission rates at days 30, 60, 90, and 135 and a survival analysis of time to remission (P = .006), as well as Clinical Global Impressions-severity of illness scale (P = .0002); Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Anxiety subscale (P = .03); 6-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Bech version (P = .009); and Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report (P = .0003).

CONCLUSIONS

Remission rates for patients treated with venlafaxine ER or an SSRI did not differ significantly after 6 months of treatment. Results of most secondary analyses suggested that SNRI treatment had a greater antidepressant effect versus the SSRIs studied.

Clinical outcomes following switch from venlafaxine ER to desvenlafaxine in nonresponders and responders

OBJECTIVE

This post hoc analysis examined efficacy and tolerability of open-label desvenlafaxine in patients with major depressive disorder switched from blinded placebo, venlafaxine extended release (ER), or desvenlafaxine.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients who completed 8 weeks of double-blind therapy with placebo (n = 176), venlafaxine ER (n = 175), or desvenlafaxine (n = 143) enrolled in a 10-month, open-label extension study and received desvenlafaxine 200 to 400 mg/d. Efficacy (17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HDRS(17)]) was assessed separately for nonresponders and responders to double-blind treatment. Tolerability during the first month of open-label desvenlafaxine was assessed.

RESULTS

Among nonresponders (n = 134) to double-blind placebo, venlafaxine ER, and desvenlafaxine, mean decreases in HDRS(17) scores were -10.9, -7.3, and -7.7, respectively; HDRS(17) response rates were 67%, 53%, and 48%, respectively. Although responders (n = 360) to double-blind placebo, venlafaxine ER, and desvenlafaxine had more modest decreases on the HDRS(17), response rates were higher (84%, 87%, and 83%, respectively). Rates of adverse events were highest during week 1, and decreased afterward for the remainder of the first month of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Among nonresponders to 8 weeks of double-blind venlafaxine ER, desvenlafaxine, or placebo, 48% to 67% subsequently responded to open-label desvenlafaxine. Over 80% of responders to double-blind therapy maintained response on open-label desvenlafaxine. The switch from venlafaxine ER to desvenlafaxine was well tolerated.

Open-label treatment with desvenlafaxine in postmenopausal women with major depressive disorder not responding to acute treatment with desvenlafaxine or escitalopram

BACKGROUND

Preliminary clinical evidence indicates that menopausal status might impact on the efficacy of certain classes of antidepressants.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate open-label desvenlafaxine treatment (administered as desvenlafaxine succinate) in postmenopausal women who did not achieve clinical response to acute, double-blind treatment with desvenlafaxine or escitalopram.

STUDY DESIGN

This phase IIIb, multicentre study included a 6-month open-label extension phase of patients who did not respond in the initial 8-week, randomized, double-blind acute phase.

PATIENTS

Postmenopausal women aged 40-70 years with a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder were recruited. PRIMARY INTERVENTION: Non-responders to acute treatment with double-blind desvenlafaxine or escitalopram received flexible-dose, open-label desvenlafaxine 100-200 mg/day for the 6-month extension phase.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The primary efficacy assessment was the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D(17)) total score. Secondary efficacy outcome measures were the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) and -Severity scales, Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety, Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report, Visual Analogue Scale-Pain Intensity and the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Secondary health assessments were the Changes in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire, 5-Dimension EuroQoL Index, Health State Today, Menopause Rating Scale, Sheehan Disability Scale, treatment response (≥ 50% decrease in total HAM-D(17) and MADRS score from acute-phase baseline and CGI-I total score ≤ 2), HAM-D(17) remission (total score ≤ 7) and safety. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize outcomes.

RESULTS

The efficacy analysis included 123 patients (desvenlafaxine/desvenlafaxine = 64; escitalopram/desvenlafaxine = 59). At final evaluation of the open-label extension phase, mean reductions from acute-phase baseline in HAM-D(17) total scores were -11.33 for the desvenlafaxine/desvenlafaxine group and -11.41 for the escitalopram/desvenlafaxine group. HAM-D(17) response or remission after 6 months of open-label extension phase desvenlafaxine treatment were achieved in 56-58% and 41-48% of patients, respectively. The results of the other secondary efficacy outcome measures and other definitions of treatment response were generally consistent with the primary analyses. The observed adverse events were similar to those reported during previous desvenlafaxine clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Postmenopausal women with major depressive disorder who did not respond to acute, double-blind treatment with escitalopram or desvenlafaxine achieved modest, continued improvement with long-term, open-label desvenlafaxine therapy. Further interpretation of these findings is limited by aspects of the study design (i.e. open-label, non-placebo-controlled) and the lack of randomized comparison groups in the extension phase, which prevents statistical assessment of the efficacy of longer term treatment with desvenlafaxine. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00406640.

Antidepressant exposure as a predictor of clinical outcomes in the Treatment of Resistant Depression in Adolescents (TORDIA) study

This paper examines the relationship between plasma concentration of antidepressant and both clinical response and adverse effects in treatment-resistant depressed adolescents. Adolescents (n = 334) with major depression who had not responded to a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) were randomized to 1 of 4 treatments: switch to another SSRI (fluoxetine, citalopram, or paroxetine), switch to venlafaxine, switch to SSRI plus cognitive behavior therapy, or switch to venlafaxine plus cognitive behavior therapy. Adolescents who did not improve by 6 weeks had their dose increased. Plasma concentrations of medication and metabolites were measured at 6 weeks in 244 participants and at 12 weeks in 204 participants. Adolescents treated with citalopram whose plasma concentration was equal to or greater than the geometric mean (GM) showed a higher response rate compared to those with less than the GM, with parallel but nonsignificant findings for fluoxetine. A dose increase of citalopram or fluoxetine at week 6 was most likely to result in response when it led to a change in concentration from less than the GM at 6 weeks to the GM or greater at week 12. Plasma levels of paroxetine, venlafaxine, or O-desmethylvenlafaxine were not related to clinical response. Exposure was associated with more cardiovascular and dermatologic side effects in those receiving venlafaxine. Antidepressant concentration may be useful in optimizing treatment for depressed adolescents receiving fluoxetine or citalopram.

Getting the balance right: Established and emerging therapies for major depressive disorders

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a common and serious illness of our times, associated with monoamine deficiency in the brain. Moreover, increased levels of cortisol, possibly caused by stress, may be related to depression. In the treatment of MDD, the use of older antidepressants such as monoamine oxidase inhibitors and tricyclic antidepressants is decreasing rapidly, mainly due to their adverse effect profiles. In contrast, the use of serotonin reuptake inhibitors and newer antidepressants, which have dual modes of action such as inhibition of the serotonin and noradrenaline or dopamine reuptake, is increasing. Novel antidepressants have additive modes of action such as agomelatine, a potent agonist of melatonin receptors. Drugs in development for treatment of MDD include triple reuptake inhibitors, dual-acting serotonin reuptake inhibitors and histamine antagonists, and many more. Newer antidepressants have similar efficacy and in general good tolerability profiles. Nevertheless, compliance with treatment for MDD is poor and may contribute to treatment failure. Despite the broad spectrum of available antidepressants, there are still at least 30% of depressive patients who do not benefit from treatment. Therefore, new approaches in drug development are necessary and, according to current research developments, the future of antidepressant treatment may be promising.

Differential effects of venlafaxine in the treatment of major depressive disorder according to baseline severity

In this meta-analysis, we compare the relative efficacy of venlafaxine to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in patients with major depressive disorder classified according to baseline disease severity. Data from 31 double-blind randomised clinical trials comparing venlafaxine and SSRIs (intent-to-treat n = 6,492) were pooled. For this secondary analysis, patients were stratified into groups based on baseline HAM-D(17) total score (>or=30, <30, >or=25, and <25). Remission rates (HAM-D(17) < 8) were analyzed for each subgroup using Fisher's exact test to compare treatment effects between venlafaxine and SSRIs; last observation carried forward (LOCF) and observed cases (OC) data were analyzed. The number needed to treat (NNT) to benefit was determined for each analysis. Statistically significant remission rate differences, favoring venlafaxine, were seen in LOCF and OC analyses for each subgroup. In patients with baseline HAM-D(17) < 25 (n = 3,928) the differences were (LOCF) 7.3 [P < 0.001; NNT = 14] and (OC) 6.2 [P = 0.003; NNT = 16], and in patients with baseline HAM-D(17) >or= 25 (n = 2,564) were (LOCF) 5.7 [P = 0.002; NNT = 17] and (OC) 6.7 [P = 0.009; NNT = 15]. In patients with baseline HAM-D(17) < 30 (n = 5,836) the differences were (LOCF) 6.4 [P < 0.001; NNT = 16] and (OC) 5.5 [P = 0.001; NNT = 18], and in patients with baseline HAM-D(17) >or= 30 (n = 656) were (LOCF) 8.9 [P = 0.015; NNT = 11] and (OC) 14.8 [P = 0.003; NNT = 7]. In conclusion, these analyses demonstrate that venlafaxine may be superior to SSRIs in achieving remission in both mild/moderate and severely depressed patients. The greater difference in remission rates among patients with baseline HAM-D(17) >or= 30 suggests a more pronounced clinical benefit that may be achieved with venlafaxine in severely depressed patients.

Efficacy of venlafaxine compared with tricyclic antidepressants in depressive disorder: a meta-analysis

With respect to the pharmacological characteristic, venlafaxine is comparable with tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), and venlafaxine might be comparable in efficacy. We performed a systematic review investigating the relative efficacy and tolerability of venlafaxine compared with TCAs (imipramine, clomipramine, amitriptyline, nortriptyline and desipramine). Relevant double-blind randomised trials were identified from systematic searches of electronic databases. An exact analysis of the estimated odds ratios of response of the TCA relative to venlafaxine showed no overall significance of treatment effect (P = 0.38). The odds ratios were not homogenous across studies (P = 0.0213). The average dose of venlafaxine was 103.5 mg/day and for the TCA 106.1 mg/day. An exact analysis of the estimated odds ratios of the withdrawals and side effects in the trials with a TCA relative to venlafaxine showed no overall significance of withdrawal. From our review, no significant difference in treatment effect between low dose of both venlafaxine and the TCAs could be found. In our opinion, because of the heterogeneity of the odds ratios, one cannot conclude that they are of equal efficacy.

Recent advances in the biological treatment of mood disorders

Welcome to the first module in our Continuing Professional Development Section (CPD). CPD is now a key element in the clinical activity of all health professionals and a cornerstone of good clinical governance throughout mental health services. This section of the Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine will provide CPD modules dedicated to key topics in mental health care. In order to assist learning and self-assessment, multiple choice questions will be provided at the end of each module. This module and its multiple choice questions are available online on the website of the Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine (www.ijpm.org). The CPD policy of the College of Psychiatry of Ireland indicates that psychiatrists who participate in suitable online learning which fits the criteria for CPD may claim CPD points under the Personal CPD category (up to a maximum of 5 points per year). We are confident that this CPD Section of the Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine will prove to be a valuable resource for consultant psychiatrists, psychiatric trainees and all journal readers. We welcome feedback from readers and, especially, any suggestions for topics to be covered in future CPD modules. Suggestions should be emailed to: psychological@medmedia.ie.

Evidence why paroxetine dose escalation is not effective in major depressive disorder: a randomized controlled trial with assessment of serotonin transporter occupancy

Dose escalation is often used in depressed patients who fail to respond to standard doses of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, but clinical efficacy is equivocal. We aimed to reassess the efficacy of paroxetine dose escalation and quantify whether paroxetine dose escalation increases occupancy of the serotonin transporter (SERT) more than placebo dose escalation in a randomized controlled trial. We recruited 107 nonpsychotic, unipolar depressed outpatients (18-70 years; Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS(17)) >18) from primary care and psychiatric outpatient departments. After 6 weeks, open-label paroxetine 20 mg per day (T0), nonresponding patients (HDRS(17) decrease <50%; n=60) were randomized to double-blind paroxetine (30-50 mg per day as tolerable) or placebo dose escalation (paroxetine 20 mg per day+placebo). Patients were followed until 6 weeks after randomization (T1). Forty-nine patients, drug free at study entry, underwent single-photon emission-computed tomography (SPECT) scanning before treatment and were scanned repeatedly at T0 and T1. Paroxetine serum concentrations and SERT occupancy were determined at T0 and T1 (n=32). We terminated the dose-escalation trial after an interim analysis. Thirty nonresponding patients were randomized to paroxetine (46.7+/-5.5 mg per day), 27 to placebo dose escalation. Response rates were 10/30 (33.3%) and 10/27 (37.0%), respectively. Repeated measurement analyses showed no significant effect for treatment (p=0.88, exceeding a priori stopping rules for futility (p>0.5)). Overall dropout was higher for placebo (26.7%) than paroxetine (3.3%; p=0.03). Paroxetine dose escalation increased paroxetine serum concentrations (p<0.001). SPECT measurements (12 patients randomized to paroxetine (46.9+/-4.8 mg) and 14 to placebo dose escalation) showed no significant increase of midbrain SERT occupancy (2.5+/-26.4%, paroxetine; 3.1+/-25.8% placebo; p=0.687) nor in diencephalon (p=0.529). Paroxetine dose escalation in depressed patients has no clinical benefit over placebo dose escalation. This is explained by the absence of significant increases of SERT occupancy by paroxetine dose escalation, despite increased paroxetine serum concentrations (ISRCTN44111488).

Pharmacotherapy of mood disorders

The mood disorders-primarily major depressive disorder and bipolar affective disorder-constitute one of the world's greatest public health problems and are associated with significant reductions in productivity, health, and longevity. In addition, people who suffer from these common illnesses, along with their families and loved ones, experience an incalculable toll on quality of life. Dating to the introduction of the first effective therapies for mood disorders in the late 1950s and 1960s, various types of pharmacotherapy have become a mainstay for the management of mood disorders, particularly more severe, chronic, and recurrent forms of depression and most forms of bipolar disorder. This review examines recent developments in the pharmacotherapy of both forms of mood disorder, comparing the newer antidepressants such as the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors with their predecessors (the monoamine oxidase inhibitors and tricyclic antidepressants) and likewise comparing the older standard for management of bipolar disorder, lithium, with newer classes of medications, such as a selected group of anticonvulsants and the atypical antipsychotics. Although these newer classes of medications have generally improved upon the earlier treatments in terms of better tolerability and safety, there are no universally effective pharmacologic treatments for mood disorders, and careful medical management of these medications is still warranted.

Evidence-based guidelines for treating depressive disorders with antidepressants: a revision of the 2000 British Association for Psychopharmacology guidelines

A revision of the 2000 British Association for Psychopharmacology evidence-based guidelines for treating depressive disorders with antidepressants was undertaken to incorporate new evidence and to update the recommendations where appropriate. A consensus meeting involving experts in depressive disorders and their management was held in May 2006. Key areas in treating depression were reviewed, and the strength of evidence and clinical implications were considered. The guidelines were drawn up after extensive feedback from participants and interested parties. A literature review is provided, which identifies the quality of evidence to inform the recommendations, the strength of which are based on the level of evidence. These guidelines cover the nature and detection of depressive disorders, acute treatment with antidepressant drugs, choice of drug versus alternative treatment, practical issues in prescribing and management, next-step treatment, relapse prevention, treatment of relapse, and stopping treatment.

Premature ovarian failure and its consequences: vasomotor symptoms, sexuality, and fertility

Premature ovarian failure is a common consequence of systemic treatment for premenopausal breast cancer. Vasomotor symptoms and sexual dysfunction occur frequently in women who have an abrupt menopause from chemotherapy or ovarian suppression. However, current fertility may be impaired even in women who are menstruating after chemotherapy, and survivors are at high risk for permanent ovarian failure at a young age. Hot flashes can be managed with venlaxafine, gabapentin, or-potentially-stress management. Providing advice on treating vaginal dryness and brief sexual counseling can often alleviate sexual dysfunction. Options for fertility preservation remain limited but are improving rapidly. Distress about interrupted childbearing has a long-term impact on the quality of life.

Efficacy and tolerability of desvenlafaxine succinate treatment for menopausal vasomotor symptoms: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare efficacy and safety of desvenlafaxine succinate (desvenlafaxine) with placebo for the treatment of vasomotor symptoms.

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial enrolled 707 healthy, postmenopausal women experiencing 50 or more moderate-to-severe hot flushes per week. Participants randomly received desvenlafaxine 50, 100, 150, or 200 mg or placebo daily. Trial duration was 52 weeks. Primary outcomes were change from baseline in average daily number of moderate-to-severe hot flushes and in daily hot flush severity score at weeks 4 and 12.

RESULTS

Six hundred twenty women with an average of 11 moderate-to-severe hot flushes per day at baseline completed at least one on-therapy evaluation for primary efficacy end points; 519 participants completed 12 weeks of treatment, and 368 completed the study. Desvenlafaxine 100 mg/d achieved a significantly greater reduction compared with placebo in average daily number of hot flushes at weeks 4 (P=.013) and 12 (P=.005), reaching a 64% decrease from baseline at week 12, and the 75% responder rate was significantly higher for desvenlafaxine 100 mg (50%) compared with placebo (29%; P=.003; number needed to treat=4.7) at week 12. Average daily severity of hot flushes was significantly lower in the desvenlafaxine 100-mg group compared with placebo at week 12 (P=.020). Desvenlafaxine-treated women reported significantly more treatment-emergent adverse events than placebo-treated women during the first week of therapy only.

CONCLUSION

Desvenlafaxine is an effective nonhormonal treatment for vasomotor symptoms in postmenopausal women. Its tolerability profile is consistent with that of other serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00421031

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I.

The economic burden associated with SSRI treatment failure in a managed care population

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to describe the economic burden to managed care associated with failure of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) therapy in terms of direct medical costs.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the PharMetrics database, a national managed care medical and pharmacy claims dataset of 1.9 million major depressive disorder patients between January 2003 and June 2005 was conducted. A pre-post comparison of annual medical cost increases following new SSRI treatment was performed and differences in mean cost increases for the SSRI-failure versus non-failure groups were calculated using t-tests and confirmed using multivariate linear regression.

RESULTS

The percentage of subjects with likely SSRI treatment failure was 30.7% (n=2,595). The two groups were statistically similar (p>0.05) in age, gender distribution and insurance status. The mean increase in total direct medical costs was $6,489 versus $3,257 for the SSRI treatment failure and non-failure cohorts, respectively. The major components of these cost increases were outpatient cost ($2,579 vs. $1,309) and inpatient cost ($2,862 vs. $1,532), between the SSRI treatment failure and non-failure cohorts, respectively. All differences remained statistically significant at p<0.001, even after controlling for potential confounders.

CONCLUSIONS

This descriptive study found that increased costs of major depressive disorder are substantial following the onset of a new SSRI treatment episode and significantly higher among patients with likely SSRI treatment failure.

Venlafaxine versus nortriptyline in the treatment of elderly depressed inpatients: a randomised, double-blind, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The majority of the trials in the elderly are outpatient trials which excluded psychotic patients and patients with common comorbid physical disorders. Consequently information is lacking about the more complex cases of elderly depressed patients, as found in inpatient wards.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of two antidepressants, venlafaxine and nortriptyline, in a clinically representative sample of elderly depressed inpatients.

METHOD

A 12-week, double blind, randomised, controlled trial in 81 elderly inpatients from one centre. All patients fulfilled DSM-IV criteria for major depression and were assessed using the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale, the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, the Geriatric Depression Scale, the Clinical Global Improvement and the Symptom, sign, and Side-effect Checklist.

RESULTS

Overall, remission was achieved by 26 (32.1%) of the patients. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of patients achieving remission on the MADRS between venlafaxine (11 out of 40 patients) and nortriptyline (15 out of 41 patients; p = 0.381) or in any of the secondary outcome variables. The number and severity of side-effects was not statistically different between both treatment groups and most side effects were mild or moderate in intensity.

CONCLUSIONS

In elderly inpatients with severe depression, venlafaxine and nortriptyline appeared to be equally effective and equally well tolerated.

Long-term treatment of depression with antidepressants: a systematic narrative review

OBJECTIVE

To examine the available scientific evidence for answers to clinically relevant questions on the effectiveness and tolerability of antidepressant drugs (ADs) for the long-term treatment of depression.

METHOD

The Cochrane Library was searched up to July 2006. When no complete Cochrane review was available, we looked in PubMed for relevant systematic reviews or individual randomized controlled trials.

RESULTS

There was no good evidence that increasing the dosage of the initial AD is an effective strategy for patients with no, or partial, response to acute-phase treatment. There was no good evidence that switching between chemical classes of antidepressant was more effective than switching within a class. There was limited support from randomized trials for several augmentation strategies. There was good evidence for the effectiveness of long-term therapy to prevent relapse in patients who remitted after acute-phase treatment. The application of principles of evidence-based medicine suggested that thoughtful, individualized application of evidence is more appropriate than general statements.

CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence provides some support for the effectiveness of several augmentation strategies in the management of patients with no, or partial, response to acute-phase treatment and for the individualized application of groupwise robust evidence for maintenance treatment with ADs to prevent relapses. However, side effects of these long-term treatments with ADs are poorly studied and reported.