Symptomatic and functional improvement in employed depressed patients: a double-blind clinical trial of desvenlafaxine versus placebo

Antidepressants and Social Functioning in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled RCTs

INTRODUCTION

Social functioning (SF) is the ability to fulfil one's social obligations and a key outcome in treatment.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to estimate the effects of antidepressants on SF in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHODS

This meta-analysis and its reporting are based on Cochrane Collaboration's Handbook of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and PRISMA guidelines (protocol registration at OSF). We systematically searched CENTRAL, Medline, PubMed Central, and PsycINFO for double-blind RCTs comparing antidepressants with placebo and reporting on SF. We computed standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs and prediction intervals.

RESULTS

We selected 40 RCTs out of 1,188 records screened, including 16,586 patients (mean age 46.8 years, 64.2% women). In 27 studies investigating patients with MDD (primary depression), antidepressants resulted in a SMD of 0.25 compared to placebo ([95% CI: 0.21; 0.30] I2: 39%). In 13 trials with patients suffering from MDD comorbid with physical conditions or disorders, the summary estimate was 0.24 ([0.10; 0.37] I2: 75%). In comorbid depression, studies with high/uncertain risk of bias had higher SMDs than low-risk studies: 0.29 [0.13; 0.44] versus 0.04 [-0.16; 0.24]; no such effect was evident in primary depression. There was no indication of sizeable reporting bias. SF efficacy correlated with efficacy on depression scores, Spearman's rho 0.67 (p < 0.001), and QoL, 0.63 (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The effect of antidepressants on SF is small, similar to its effect on depressive symptoms in primary MDD, and doubtful in comorbid depression. Strong correlations with both antidepressive and QoL effects suggest overlap among domains.

Practical pathway for the management of depression in the workplace: a Canadian perspective

Major depressive disorder (MDD) and other mental health issues pose a substantial burden on the workforce. Approximately half a million Canadians will not be at work in any week because of a mental health disorder, and more than twice that number will work at a reduced level of productivity (presenteeism). Although it is important to determine whether work plays a role in a mental health condition, at initial presentation, patients should be diagnosed and treated per appropriate clinical guidelines. However, it is also important for patient care to determine the various causes or triggers including work-related factors. Clearly identifying the stressors associated with the mental health disorder can help clinicians to assess functional limitations, develop an appropriate care plan, and interact more effectively with worker's compensation and disability programs, as well as employers. There is currently no widely accepted tool to definitively identify MDD as work-related, but the presence of certain patient and work characteristics may help. This paper seeks to review the evidence specific to depression in the workplace, and provide practical tips to help clinicians to identify and treat work-related MDD, as well as navigate disability issues.

Efficacy and tolerability of desvenlafaxine in the real-world treatment of patients with major depression: a narrative review and an expert opinion paper

INTRODUCTION

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a common severe mental disorder, requiring a tailored and integrated treatment. Several approaches are available including different classes of antidepressants various psychotherapeutic approaches, and psychosocial interventions. The treatment plan for each patient with MDD should be differentiated on the basis of several clinical, personal, and contextual factors.

AREAS COVERED

Desvenlafaxine - a serotonine-noradrenergic reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) antidepressant - has been approved in the United States in 2008 for the treatment of MDD in adults, and has been recently rediscovered by clinicians due to its good side-effect profile and its clinical effectiveness. A narrative review on efficacy, tolerability and use of desvenlafaxine in clinical practice was carried out. The keywords: 'major depression', 'depression,' 'desvenlafaxine,' 'efficacy,' 'clinical efficacy,' 'side effects', 'tolerability,' 'elderly patients', 'consultation-liaison', 'menopausal', 'young people', 'adolescent' were entered in PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge, Scopus and Medline. No time limit was fixed, the search strategy was implemented on May 10, 2023.

EXPERT OPINION

Desvenlafaxine should be listed among the optimal treatment strategies for managing people with MDD, whose main strengths are: 1) ease of dosing; 2) favorable safety and tolerability profile, 3) absence of sexual dysfunctions, weight gain and low rate of discontinuation symptoms; 4) low risk of drug-drug interactions.

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, duloxetine-controlled, non-inferiority trial of desvenlafaxine succinate extended-release in patients with major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND

Desvenlafaxine and duloxetine are selective serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors. Their efficacy has not been directly compared using statistical hypotheses. This study evaluated the non-inferiority of desvenlafaxine extended-release (XL) to duloxetine in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHODS

In this study, 420 adult patients with moderate-to-severe MDD were enrolled and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 50 mg (once daily [QD]) of desvenlafaxine XL (n = 212) or 60 mg QD of duloxetine (n = 208). The primary endpoint was evaluated using a non-inferiority comparison based on the change from baseline to 8 weeks in the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD₁₇) total score. Secondary endpoints and safety were evaluated.

RESULTS

Least-squares mean change in HAM-D₁₇ total score from baseline to 8 weeks was -15.3 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -17.73, -12.89) in the desvenlafaxine XL group and - 15.9 (95% CI, -18.44, -13.39) in the duloxetine group. The least-squares mean difference was 0.6 (95% CI: -0.48, 1.69), and the upper boundary of 95% CI was less than the non-inferiority margin (2.2). No significant between-treatment differences were found in most secondary efficacy endpoints. The incidence of the most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was lower for desvenlafaxine XL than for duloxetine for nausea (27.2% versus 48.8%) and dizziness (18.0% versus 28.8%).

LIMITATIONS

A short-term non-inferiority study without a placebo arm.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that desvenlafaxine XL 50 mg QD was non-inferior to duloxetine 60 mg QD in efficacy in patients with MDD. Desvenlafaxine had a lower incidence of TEAEs than duloxetine did.

The association between placebo arm inclusion and adverse event rates in antidepressant randomized controlled trials: An examination of the Nocebo Effect

BACKGROUND

Antidepressant efficacy is influenced by patient expectations and, in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the probability of receiving a placebo. It is unclear whether tolerability demonstrates a similar pattern. This study aimed to determine whether study design influences adverse event (AE) rates in antidepressant trials for subjects receiving active treatment or placebo.

METHODS

RCTs comparing one antidepressant to another antidepressant, placebo, or both in major depressive disorder (MDD) (1996-2018) were retrieved from Medline and PsycINFO. Clinicaltrials.gov was searched for unpublished trials. Of 1,997 studies screened, 77 trials were included. Studies were classified as drug-drug, drug-drug-placebo, or drug-placebo based on design and overall number of subjects experiencing any AE was recorded. Subgroup meta-analysis of proportions and meta-regression techniques were used to compare AE rates across study designs in patients receiving active antidepressant treatment and placebo.

RESULTS

Among the actively treated, AE rates were lower in drug-drug trials (58.5%) compared to drug-drug-placebo (75.7%) and drug-placebo (76.4%) (the model reported coefficients for percent differences between AE rates of different study designs were B=17.0, p<0.001 and B=17.8, p<0.001, respectively). AE rates in patients receiving placebo were not different between study designs.

LIMITATIONS

The present study is limited by the diverse range of study populations, variability in reporting of AEs, and specific antidepressants employed in the included trials.

CONCLUSIONS

The inclusion of a placebo arm in the study design was unexpectedly associated with higher rates of AEs among patients receiving active medication in antidepressant trials. This observation has important implications for interpretation of trial tolerability findings.

Pretreatment Brain Connectome Fingerprint Predicts Treatment Response in Major Depressive Disorder

Background

Major depressive disorder (MDD) treatment is characterized by low remission rate and often involves weeks to months of treatment. Identification of pretreatment biomarkers of response may play a critical role in novel drug development, in enhanced prognostic predictions, and perhaps in providing more personalized medicine. Using a network restricted strength predictive modeling (NRS-PM) approach, the goal of the current study was to identify pretreatment functional connectome fingerprints (CFPs) that (1) predict symptom improvement regardless of treatment modality and (2) predict treatment specific improvement.

Methods

Functional magnetic resonance imaging and behavioral data from unmedicated patients with MDD (n = 200) were investigated. Participants were randomized to daily treatment of sertraline or placebo for 8 weeks. NRS-PM with 1000 iterations of 10 cross-validation were implemented to identify brain connectivity signatures that predict percent improvement in depression severity at week-8.

Results

The study identified a pretreatment CFP that significantly predicts symptom improvement independent of treatment modality but failed to identify a treatment specific CFP. Regardless of treatment modality, improved antidepressant response was predicted by high pretreatment connectivity between modules in the default mode network and the rest of the brain, but low external connectivity in the executive network. Moreover, high pretreatment internal nodal connectivity in the bilateral caudate predicted better response.

Conclusions

The identified CFP may contribute to drug development and ultimately to enhanced prognostic predictions. However, the results do not assist with providing personalized medicine, as pretreatment functional connectivity failed to predict treatment specific response.

Trajectories of Function and Symptom Change in Desvenlafaxine Clinical Trials: Toward Personalized Treatment for Depression

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND

Heterogeneity has been documented in trajectories of symptom change during antidepressant treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD). It is unclear whether distinct trajectories of change exist for functioning during antidepressant treatment.

METHODS/PROCEDURES

This analysis explored distinct trajectories of functioning in MDD and tested whether they corresponded to trajectories of symptom change. Data were from 4317 patients and were pooled from 9 randomized placebo-controlled trials. Growth mixture modeling was used to identify trajectories of Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) and Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) for placebo- and desvenlafaxine-treated patients.

FINDINGS/RESULTS

Three trajectories were identified for symptoms (HRSD) in patients receiving placebo (mean reduction baseline to week 8, -18.4 [most favorable] to -2.6 points [least favorable]). Four HRSD trajectories were identified for patients receiving desvenlafaxine (mean reduction from baseline to week 8, -17.2 [most favorable] to -2.6 points [least favorable]). Four trajectories were identified for functioning (SDS) in patients receiving placebo (mean reduction baseline to week 8, -13.6 [most favorable] to -0.8 points [least favorable]), and 3 for desvenlafaxine (-12.8 to -1.4 points, respectively). Percentages of agreement between most favorable HRSD and SDS trajectories were 75% (placebo) and 85% (desvenlafaxine), and for least favorable trajectories were 88% (placebo) and 80% (desvenlafaxine).

IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS

Distinct trajectories of change based on symptoms and functioning were identified among patients with MDD receiving desvenlafaxine and among patients with MDD receiving placebo. Differentiating subpopulations of patients has the potential to provide a more personalized treatment of patients with MDD.ClinicalTrials.govIdentifiers: NCT00072774; NCT00277823; NCT00300378; NCT00384033; NCT00798707; NCT00863798; NCT01121484; NCT00824291; NCT01432457.

Interventions to improve return to work in depressed people

BACKGROUND

Work disability such as sickness absence is common in people with depression.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing work disability in employees with depressive disorders.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO until April 4th 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs of work-directed and clinical interventions for depressed people that included days of sickness absence or being off work as an outcome. We also analysed the effects on depression and work functioning.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted the data and rated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We used standardised mean differences (SMDs) or risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) to pool study results in studies we judged to be sufficiently similar.  MAIN RESULTS: In this update, we added 23 new studies. In total, we included 45 studies with 88 study arms, involving 12,109 participants with either a major depressive disorder or a high level of depressive symptoms. Risk of bias The most common types of bias risk were detection bias (27 studies) and attrition bias (22 studies), both for the outcome of sickness absence. Work-directed interventions Work-directed interventions combined with clinical interventions A combination of a work-directed intervention and a clinical intervention probably reduces days of sickness absence within the first year of follow-up (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.12; 9 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). This translates back to 0.5 fewer (95% CI -0.7 to -0.2) sick leave days in the past two weeks or 25 fewer days during one year (95% CI -37.5 to -11.8). The intervention does not lead to fewer persons being off work beyond one year follow-up (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.09; 2 studies, high-certainty evidence). The intervention may reduce depressive symptoms (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.01; 8 studies, low-certainty evidence) and probably has a small effect on work functioning (SMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.06; 5 studies, moderate-certainty evidence) within the first year of follow-up.  Stand alone work-directed interventions A specific work-directed intervention alone may increase the number of sickness absence days compared with work-directed care as usual (SMD 0.39, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.74; 2 studies, low-certainty evidence) but probably does not lead to more people being off work within the first year of follow-up (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.11; 1 study, moderate-certainty evidence) or beyond (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.22; 2 studies, moderate-certainty evidence). There is probably no effect on depressive symptoms (SMD -0.10, 95% -0.30 CI to 0.10; 4 studies, moderate-certainty evidence) within the first year of follow-up and there may be no effect on depressive symptoms beyond that time (SMD 0.18, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.49; 1 study, low-certainty evidence). The intervention may also not lead to better work functioning (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.90 to 0.26; 1 study, low-certainty evidence) within the first year of follow-up.   Psychological interventions A psychological intervention, either face-to-face, or an E-mental health intervention, with or without professional guidance, may reduce the number of sickness absence days, compared with care as usual (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.28 to -0.03; 9 studies, low-certainty evidence). It may also reduce depressive symptoms (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.15, 8 studies, low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether these psychological interventions improve work ability (SMD -0.15 95% CI -0.46 to 0.57; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Psychological intervention combined with antidepressant medication Two studies compared the effect of a psychological intervention combined with antidepressants to antidepressants alone. One study combined psychodynamic therapy with tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) medication and another combined telephone-administered cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI). We are uncertain if this intervention reduces the number of sickness absence days (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.99 to 0.24; 2 studies, very low-certainty evidence) but found that there may be no effect on depressive symptoms (SMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.12; 2 studies, low-certainty evidence). Antidepressant medication only Three studies compared the effectiveness of SSRI to selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) medication on reducing sickness absence and yielded highly inconsistent results. Improved care Overall, interventions to improve care did not lead to fewer days of sickness absence, compared to care as usual (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.06; 7 studies, moderate-certainty evidence). However, in studies with a low risk of bias, the intervention probably leads to fewer days of sickness absence in the first year of follow-up (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.05; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Improved care probably leads to fewer depressive symptoms (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.07; 7 studies, moderate-certainty evidence) but may possibly lead to a decrease in work-functioning (SMD 0.5, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.66; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). Exercise Supervised strength exercise may reduce sickness absence, compared to relaxation (SMD -1.11; 95% CI -1.68 to -0.54; one study, low-certainty evidence). However, aerobic exercise probably is not more effective than relaxation or stretching (SMD -0.06; 95% CI -0.36 to 0.24; 2 studies, moderate-certainty evidence). Both studies found no differences between the two conditions in depressive symptoms.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A combination of a work-directed intervention and a clinical intervention probably reduces the number of sickness absence days, but at the end of one year or longer follow-up, this does not lead to more people in the intervention group being at work. The intervention may also reduce depressive symptoms and probably increases work functioning more than care as usual. Specific work-directed interventions may not be more effective than usual work-directed care alone. Psychological interventions may reduce the number of sickness absence days, compared with care as usual. Interventions to improve clinical care probably lead to lower sickness absence and lower levels of depression, compared with care as usual. There was no evidence of a difference in effect on sickness absence of one antidepressant medication compared to another. Further research is needed to assess which combination of work-directed and clinical interventions works best.

Predictors of functional response and remission with desvenlafaxine 50 mg and 100 mg: a pooled analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled studies in patients with major depressive disorder

OBJECTIVE

The value of early functional improvement at week 2 for predicting subsequent functional outcomes at week 8 was assessed in a pooled analysis of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) treated with desvenlafaxine (50 or 100 mg/d) or placebo.

METHODS

Data were pooled from eight double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d or 100 mg/d for the treatment of MDD. Optimal week-2 improvement thresholds in Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) score, which best predicted week-8 treatment success, were determined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Four definitions of treatment success were established: (1) functional response, (2) functional/depression response, (3) functional remission, and (4) functional/depression remission. Odds ratios (ORs) of early improvement for prediction (based on thresholds determined in the ROC analysis) of week-8 treatment success were computed using logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Functional early improvement thresholds of 17%-32% were predictive of week-8 treatment success across treatment groups and definitions of treatment success. Optimal thresholds were higher for more stringent definitions. Negative predictive value exceeded positive predictive value, indicating that failure to achieve early functional improvement was more informative about later treatment success than was the achievement of early functional improvement. Early change in SDS was a highly significant predictor of functional response/remission (ORs, 4.981-8.737; all p < 0.0001); the interaction between treatment and early functional improvement was not significant.

CONCLUSION

Early improvement in SDS total score was predictive of functional outcomes for patients treated with desvenlafaxine 50 mg, desvenlafaxine 100 mg, or placebo.

Meta-analysis of placebo group dropout in adult antidepressant trials

BACKGROUND

Minimizing dropouts across antidepressant, placebo-controlled trials remains a major opportunity to improve the efficiency of trials. This meta-analysis investigated placebo dropout rate and its predictors in second generation antidepressant (SGA) for anxiety, depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).

METHODS

A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to examine placebo group dropout rate in SGA trials for depression, anxiety and OCD using Freeman - Tukey transformation. Stratified subgroup analysis by diagnostic indication was performed to examine the dropout rate across disorders. Meta-regression was performed to identify correlates between placebo dropout rate and trial and subject characteristics.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis included 148 trials with 18,016 participants receiving placebo. Across antidepressant trials the overall placebo dropout rate was 25% (dropout rate ± standard error (SE) = 0.25 ± 0.01, 95% CI: 0.23-0.27, z = 23.95, p < .001) and was similar across disorders (χ2 = 1.09, df = 2, p = .58). The placebo group dropout rate was 26% in depressive disorders, 25% in anxiety disorders and 22% in OCD. Across all diagnostic indications, earlier publication year, placebo lead-in, studies conducted in a single country (instead of internationally), longer trial duration, fewer study sites, more study visits and less baseline illness severity were associated with higher placebo dropout rate. Significant predictors of placebo dropout did not replicate across disorders.

CONCLUSION

No significant difference was found in placebo dropout rate between internalizing disorders with overall dropout rate for placebo groups in antidepressant trials being around 25%. Placebo dropouts in trials can be minimized by reducing subject burden in trials, enrolling more severely affected subjects and foregoing placebo lead-in periods.

Effects of desvenlafaxine versus placebo on MDD symptom clusters: A pooled analysis

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorder is characterized by the presence of at least five of nine specific symptoms that contribute to clinically significant functional impairment. This analysis examined the effect of desvenlafaxine (50 or 100 mg) versus placebo on symptom cluster scores and the association between early improvement in symptom clusters and symptomatic or functional remission at week 8.

METHODS

Using data from nine double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of desvenlafaxine for the treatment of major depressive disorder (N=4317), the effect of desvenlafaxine 50 or 100 mg versus placebo on scores for symptom clusters based on 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression items was assessed using analysis of covariance. Association between early improvement in symptom clusters (⩾20% improvement from baseline at week 2) and symptomatic and functional remission (17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression total score ⩽7; Sheehan Disability Scale score <7) at week 8 was analyzed using logistic regression. Symptom clusters based on Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale were also examined.

RESULTS

Desvenlafaxine 50 or 100 mg was associated with significant improvement from baseline compared to placebo for all symptom clusters (p<0.001), except a sleep cluster for desvenlafaxine 100 mg. For all symptom clusters, early improvement was significantly associated with achievement of symptomatic and functional remission at week 8 for all treatment groups (p⩽0.0254).

CONCLUSION

Early improvement in symptom clusters significantly predicts symptomatic or functional remission at week 8 in patients with depression receiving desvenlafaxine (50 or 100 mg) or placebo. Importantly, patients without early improvement were less likely to remit.

Applying the inclusion/exclusion criteria in placebo-controlled studies to a clinical sample: A comparison of medications

BACKGROUND

We previously compared the inclusion/exclusion criteria in the studies of vortioxetine to other antidepressants and found that they were significantly more restrictive in the vortioxetine studies. In the present study, we tested the hypothesis that the differences in psychiatric inclusion/exclusion criteria used in the studies of some antidepressants resulted in differences in generalizability to clinical samples.

METHODS

We applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria used in 161 antidepressant efficacy trials to 1,271 patients presenting to an outpatient practice who received a principal diagnosis of major depressive disorder. The patients underwent a thorough diagnostic evaluation. We compared the percentage of patients that would be excluded in studies of different medications.

RESULTS

The percentage of patients that would have been excluded was significantly higher in the vortioxetine studies than other medications. For the 15 medications that were included in at least 5 trials, we computed the mean percentage of patients that would be excluded. The values ranged from 76.0% (for fluoxetine) to 99.1% (for quetiapine).

LIMITATIONS

While our calculations were based on the exclusion criteria stated in the published articles, we have no way of knowing how these criteria were actually applied.

CONCLUSION

Studies of different medications vary in how representative the samples are of patients in clinical practice. The variability in the inclusion/exclusion criteria used to select samples for antidepressant efficacy trials, and the evidence that studies of different medications vary in their generalizability, makes it more difficult to interpret network analyses comparing the relative efficacy of medications.

Categorical improvement in functional impairment in depressed patients treated with desvenlafaxine

OBJECTIVE

This post-hoc pooled analysis evaluated categorical change in functional impairment in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) treated with desvenlafaxine versus placebo and examined whether early improvement in functioning predicted functional outcomes at study endpoint.

METHODS

Data were pooled from eight randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of desvenlafaxine for the treatment of MDD, including adults who were randomly assigned to receive desvenlafaxine 50 or 100 mg/d or placebo (N=3,384). Shift tables were generated for categorical changes in functional impairment from baseline based on Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) subscale scores. The categories were none/mild (0-3), moderate (4-6), and marked/extreme (7-10). Treatment comparisons for prespecified shifts of interest and predictive value of week 2 or 4 improvement in SDS subscale scores for functional outcome at week 8 were assessed using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Greater proportions of patients receiving desvenlafaxine 50 and 100 mg achieved improvement from baseline to week 8 for each prespecified shift endpoint versus placebo (all p ≤ 0.02). Early improvement in SDS subscale scores was a statistically significant predictor of functional outcome at week 8, both overall and for each treatment group (all p&lt;0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with desvenlafaxine 50 or 100 mg/d led to significantly greater categorical improvement in functional impairment versus placebo, and improvement in SDS subscale scores significantly predicted functional outcome. Monitoring patient progress early in the course of antidepressant treatment using a functional assessment such as the SDS may help clinicians determine whether or not treatment adjustments are needed.

Frequency of Sexual Dysfunction in Patients Treated with Desvenlafaxine: A Prospective Naturalistic Study

Despite being clinically underestimated, sexual dysfunction (SD) is one of the most frequent and lasting adverse effects associated with antidepressants. Desvenlafaxine is an antidepressant (AD) with noradrenergic and serotonergic action that can cause a lower SD than other serotonergic ADs although there are still few studies on this subject. Objective: To check the frequency of SD in two groups of depressive patients: one group was desvenlafaxine-naïve; the other was made up of patients switched to desvenlafaxine from another AD due to iatrogenic sexual dysfunction. A naturalistic, multicenter, and prospective study of patients receiving desvenlafaxine (50–100 mg/day) was carried out on 72 patients who met the inclusion criteria (>18 years old and sexually active), who had received desvenlafaxine for the first time (n = 27) or had switched to desvenlafaxine due to SD with another AD (n = 45). Patients with previous SD, receiving either drugs or presenting a concomitant pathology that interfered with their sexual life and/or patients who abused alcohol and/or drugs were excluded. We used the validated Psychotropic-Related Sexual Dysfunction Questionnaire (PRSexDQ-SALSEX) to measure AD-related sexual dysfunction and the Clinical Global Impression Scale for psychiatric disease (CGI-S) and for sexual dysfunction (CGI-SD) at two points in time: baseline and three months after the commencement of desvenlafaxine treatment. Results: In desvenlafaxine-naïve patients, 59.2% of the sample showed moderate/severe sexual dysfunction at baseline, which was reduced to 44% at follow-up. The PSexDQ-SALSEX questionnaire total score showed a significant improvement in sexual desire and sexual arousal without changes in orgasmic function at follow-up (p < 0.01). In the group switched to desvenlafaxine, the frequency of moderate/severe SD at baseline (93.3%) was reduced to 75.6% at follow-up visit. Additionally, SD significantly improved in three out of four items of the SALSEX: low desire, delayed orgasm, and anorgasmia at follow-up (p < 0.01), but there was no significant improvement in arousal difficulties. The frequency of severe SD was reduced from 73% at baseline to 35% at follow-up. The CGI for psychiatric disease and for sexual dysfunction improved significantly in both groups (p < 0.01). There was a poor tolerability with risk of treatment noncompliance in 26.7% of patients with sexual dysfunction due to another AD, this significantly reduced to 11.1% in those who switched to desvenlafaxine (p = 0.004). Conclusion: Sexual dysfunction improved significantly in depressed patients who initiated treatment with desvenlafaxine and in those who switched from another AD to desvenlafaxine, despite this, desvenlafaxine treatment is not completely devoid of sexual adverse effects. This switching strategy could be highly relevant in clinical practice due to the significant improvement in moderate/severe and poorly tolerated SD, while maintaining the AD efficacy.

A Review of Novel Antidepressants: A Guide for Clinicians

This review article aims to provide insight into the mechanisms of action, pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, safety and tolerability of four novel antidepressants including desvenlafaxine, vortioxetine, vilazodone, and levomilnacipran. Following keywords are used in PubMed and Scopus to search for relevant articles: (depression) AND (psychopharmacology OR desvenlafaxine OR levomilnacipran OR vortioxetine OR vilazodone). Patients with a lack of effectiveness or tolerability to certain antidepressants may get benefit from selecting a new antidepressant with different mechanism of action. These medications can be an option in the selection of newer antidepressants. Depression may not be caused by the simple deficiency of serotonin in the brain, but rather a complex interplay of various neurotransmitters including serotonin, norepinephrine, glutamate, and histamine at certain brain areas. The above-mentioned novel antidepressants exert their therapeutic benefits by acting on multiple neurotransmitters. The complexity of underlying the neurobiological mechanism should be considered while formulating a plan of care.

Relationship between work functioning and self-reported cognitive complaints in patients with major depressive disorder treated with desvenlafaxine

Patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) often report that cognitive difficulties, such as memory problems or poor concentration, interfere with their work functioning. We examined the association between self-reported cognitive complaints and work functioning in employed patients with MDD treated with desvenlafaxine. A sample of 36 adult outpatients with MDD completed subjective cognition (British Columbia Cognitive Complaints Inventory [BC-CCI]) and functioning scales (Sheehan Disability Scale [SDS]; Lam Employment Absence and Productivity Scale [LEAPS]; and Health and Work Performance Questionnaire [HPQ]) before and after 8 weeks of open-label treatment with flexibly-dosed desvenlafaxine (50-100 mg/day). Multiple regression analyses were used to assess the relationship between subjective cognitive measures and work functioning scales. Patients showed significant improvements in clinical, cognitive, and work functioning measures following treatment with desvenlafaxine. A predictive association was found between the BC-CCI and both the SDS and LEAPS, but not with the HPQ, when adjusted for depression severity. Self-report cognitive questionnaires can provide useful information to monitor changes in cognitive functioning over time and to predict improvement in work functioning outcomes.

Meta-analysis: Second generation antidepressants and headache

BACKGROUND

To assess the risk of headache associated with commonly prescribed antidepressant medications and to examine the impact of medication class, pharmacodynamics and dosage on risk of headache.

METHODS

We searched PubMed to identify all randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials examining the efficacy of second generation antidepressant medications in the treatment of adults with depression, anxiety or obsessive-compulsive disorders. We used a fixed-effect meta-analysis to examine the pooled risk ratio of headache reported as a side-effect in adults treated with second generation antidepressants compared to placebo. We used stratified subgroup analysis and meta-regression to examine the effects of medication type, class, dosage, indication, and receptor affinity profile on the measured risk of headache.

RESULTS

SSRIs were associated with a significantly increased risk of headache (RR = 1.06, 95%CI = 1.00-1.13, z = 2.0, p = 0.045) when compared to placebo. There was no significant difference (test for subgroup differences χ² = 2.2, df = 1, p = 0.14) in the risk of headache between SSRIs and SNRIs (RR = 0.97, 95%CI = 0.88-1.06, p = 0.63). There was no significant difference in the relative risk of headache with second generation antidepressants based on diagnostic indication, pharmacological properties and dosage of medications. The only antidepressants that were found to be significantly associated with increased risk of headache compared to placebo were bupropion (RR = 1.22, 95%CI = 1.06-1.41, z = 2.73, p = 0.006) and escitalopram (RR = 1.18, 95%CI = 1.01-1.37, z = 2.11, p = 0.04).

LIMITATIONS

The small number of studies that examined side effects within fixed-dose trials may have limited the power to examine the association between medication dosing and risk of headache. Additionally, reporting bias could potentially occur non-randomly across agents and therefore effect meta-analysis results.

CONCLUSIONS

Headaches reported after the initiation of second generation antidepressant medications are more likely to be coincidental than a treatment-emergent side effect of these medications.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Efficacy of antidepressants on measures of workplace functioning in major depressive disorder: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Work-related disability and productivity loss in Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) are critical determinants of patient quality of life and contribute significantly to the human and economic costs of MDD. Notwithstanding the return to work and pre-morbid levels of functioning as a critical therapeutic objective among individuals with MDD, it is unclear whether antidepressant treatment significantly and reliably improves measures of workplace functioning. Herein, we investigate to what extent antidepressant treatment improves workplace functioning among adults with MDD.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled or active comparator clinical trials primarily or secondarily investigating the efficacy of antidepressant agents on subjective ratings of workplace functioning and/or measures of work absence.

RESULTS

Thirteen placebo-controlled and four active comparator clinical trials reported on the efficacy of agomelatine, bupropion, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, fluoxetine, levomilnacipran, paroxetine, sertraline, venlafaxine, or vortioxetine on subjective measures of workplace impairment. Overall, antidepressant treatment improved standardized measures of workplace functioning (e.g., Sheehan Disability Scale-work item). One placebo-controlled trial of agomelatine and one clinical trial comparing the efficacy of vortioxetine to that of venlafaxine had mixed results on measures of work absence.

LIMITATIONS

Included interventional trials evaluated work-related disability as a secondary outcome using subjective rating scales.

CONCLUSION

Extant data suggest that antidepressant treatment improves workplace outcomes in MDD. The capability of antidepressants in improving measures of workplace functioning should be considered in cost-benefit analyses to better inform cost-modelling studies pertaining to antidepressant therapy.

Assessment and management of sexual dysfunction in the context of depression

Sexual dysfunction (SD) is pervasive and underreported, and its effects on quality of life are underestimated. Due in part to its bidirectional relationship with depression, SD can be difficult to diagnose; it is also a common side effect of many antidepressants, leading to treatment noncompliance. While physicians often count on patients to spontaneously report SD, treatment is optimized when the clinician instead performs a thorough assessment of sexual functioning before and during drug therapy using a standardized questionnaire such as the Arizona Sexual Experiences Scale (ASEX). Separating the effects of the disorder from those of medications is challenging; we present a concise, evidence-based schematic to assist physicians in minimizing treatment-emergent sexual dysfunction (TESD) while treating depression. Vascular, hormonal, neurogenic, and pharmacological factors should be considered when a patient presents with SD. We also recommend that physicians obtain patient information about baseline and historical sexual functioning before prescribing a drug that may lead to SD and follow up accordingly. When the goal is to treat depression while attenuating the risk of sexual symptoms, physicians may wish to consider agomelatine, bupropion, desvenlafaxine, moclobemide, trazodone, vilazodone, and vortioxetine.

Meta-analysis: Risk of hyperhidrosis with second-generation antidepressants

BACKGROUND

Our goal was to quantify the risk of hyperhidrosis associated with commonly used antidepressant agents and examine the impact of medication class, pharmacodynamics, and dose on risk of hyperhidrosis.

METHODS

We conducted a PubMed search to identify all double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials examining the efficacy of second-generation antidepressant medications in the treatment of adults with a depressive disorder, anxiety disorders, or obsessive-compulsive disorder. We used a random-effects meta-analysis to examine the pooled risk ratio of hyperhidrosis reported as a side effect in adults treated with second-generation antidepressants compared to placebo. We used stratified subgroup analysis and metaregression to examine the effects of medication type, class, dosage, indication, and receptor affinity profile on the measured risk of hyperhidrosis.

RESULTS

We identified 76 trials involving 28,544 subjects. There was no significant difference in the risk of hyperhidrosis between serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) [risk ratio (RR) = 3.17, 95% CI: 2.63-3.82] and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) (RR = 2.93, 95% CI: 2.46-3.47) medications compared to placebo. All antidepressant medications were associated with a significantly increased risk of hyperhidrosis except fluvoxamine (RR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.12-2.53), bupropion (RR = 1.23, 95% CI: 0.57-2.67), and vortioxetine (RR = 1.35, 95% CI: 0.79-2.33). The dose of SSRI/SNRI medications was not significantly associated with the risk of hyperhidrosis. Increased risk of hyperhidrosis was associated with increased affinity of SSRI/SNRI medications to the dopamine transporter.

CONCLUSION

Risk of hyperhidrosis was significantly increased with most antidepressant medications but was associated with dopamine transporter affinity.

The impact of fatigue and energy on work functioning and impairment in patients with major depressive disorder treated with desvenlafaxine

Fatigue and low energy are cardinal symptoms of major depressive disorder (MDD) that have an impact on work functioning. Antidepressants with noradrenergic activity have been hypothesized to improve symptoms of fatigue and low energy. We examined the impact of these symptoms on work functioning in patients with MDD treated with the serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor, desvenlafaxine. A secondary analysis was carried out from a study of employed adult outpatients (n=35) with MDD and subjective cognitive complaints treated with desvenlafaxine 50-100 mg/day for 8 weeks. Multiple regression analyses modeled improvement in work functioning measures (Lam Employment Absence and Productivity Scale, Health and Work Performance Questionnaire, Sheehan Disability Scale) with measures of fatigue (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Fatigue scale and 20-item Hopkins Symptom Check List Energy scale). Patients showed a significant improvement in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale scores as well as in fatigue and work functioning measures following treatment. Fatigue measures were significantly associated with improvement in some (Lam Employment Absence and Productivity Scale, Sheehan Disability Scale), but not all (Health and Work Performance Questionnaire) work functioning measures, independent of improvement in overall depressive symptoms. The limitations of this study include the small sample size and the lack of a placebo or a comparison group. Fatigue and low energy are important symptoms that are associated with occupational impairment in MDD. Treatments that improve these symptoms are likely to improve work functioning.

Speed of Improvement in Symptoms of Depression With Desvenlafaxine 50 mg and 100 mg Compared With Placebo in Patients With Major Depressive Disorder

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND

This post hoc analysis examined the time point at which clinically significant improvement in major depressive disorder (MDD) symptoms occurs with desvenlafaxine versus placebo.

METHODS

Data were pooled from 9 short-term, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies in adults with MDD randomly assigned to desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d, 100 mg/d, or placebo. A mixed-effects model for repeated-measures analysis of change from baseline score was used to determine the time point at which desvenlafaxine treatment groups separated from placebo on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and psychosocial outcomes. The association between early improvement and week 8 outcomes was examined using logistic regression analyses. Time to remission for patients with early improvement versus without early improvement was assessed using Kaplan-Meier techniques. Comparisons between groups were performed with log-rank tests.

RESULTS

In the intent-to-treat population (N = 4279 patients: desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d, n = 1714; desvenlafaxine 100 mg/d, n = 870; placebo, n = 1695), a statistically significant improvement on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression was observed with desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d at week 1 (P = 0.0129) and with desvenlafaxine 100 mg/d at week 2 (P = 0.0002) versus placebo. Early improvement was a significant predictor of later remission. Treatment assignment, baseline depression scale scores, and race were significantly associated with probability of early improvement. On several measures of depressive symptoms and function, desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d and 100 mg/d separated from placebo as early as week 1 and no later than week 4 in patients with MDD.

IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that clinicians may be able to use depression rating scale scores early in treatment as a guide to inform treatment optimization.

Effect of desvenlafaxine 50 mg and 100 mg on energy and lassitude in patients with major depressive disorder: A pooled analysis

Nine randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of major depressive disorder were pooled to evaluate the effects of desvenlafaxine 50- and 100-mg/d on energy and lassitude in adults with major depressive disorder ( n=4279). Changes from baseline to endpoint in 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D₁₇) Work and Activities, Retardation, and Somatic Symptoms General items, HAM-D₁₇ psychomotor retardation factor, and Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale Lassitude item were analyzed with a mixed model for repeated measures analysis of variance. Associations between residual energy measures and functional impairment, based on the Sheehan Disability Scale, were modeled using stepwise multiple linear regression. Improvement from baseline was significantly greater for both desvenlafaxine doses versus placebo on all energy symptom outcomes at week 8 (all p⩽0.005). Both early improvement in HAM-D₁₇ psychomotor retardation at week 2 and residual energy symptoms at week 8 were associated with Sheehan Disability Scale total score at week 8 (all p⩽0.001). Among Sheehan Disability Scale remitters and responders, the HAM-D₁₇ psychomotor retardation score at week 8 was significantly lower with desvenlafaxine (both doses) than placebo. Desvenlafaxine 50 and 100 mg/d significantly improved energy and lassitude symptoms in patients with major depressive disorder. Both early improvement in energy and fewer residual energy symptoms were associated with functional improvement.

Restoring function in major depressive disorder: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Functional impairment contributes to significant disability and economic burden in major depressive disorder (MDD). Treatment response is measured by improvement in depressive symptoms, but functional improvement often lags behind symptomatic improvement. Residual deficits are associated with relapse of depressive symptoms.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using the following terms: "major depressive disorder," "functional impairment," "functional outcomes," "recovery of function," "treatment outcome," "outcome assessment," "social functioning," "presenteeism," "absenteeism," "psychiatric status rating scales," and "quality of life." Search limits included publication date (January 1, 1995 to August 31, 2016), English language, and human clinical trials. Controlled, acute-phase, nonrecurrent MDD treatment studies in adults were included if a functional outcome was measured at baseline and endpoint.

RESULTS

The qualitative analysis included 35 controlled studies. The Sheehan Disability Scale was the most commonly used functional assessment. Antidepressant treatments significantly improved functional outcomes. Early treatment response predicted functional improvement, while baseline disease severity did not.

LIMITATIONS

Clinical studies utilized various methodologies and assessments for functional impairment, and were not standardized or adequately powered.

CONCLUSIONS

The lack of synchronicity between symptomatic and functional improvement highlights an unmet need for MDD. Treatment guided by routine monitoring of symptoms and functionality may minimize residual functional impairments.

Efficacy of Desvenlafaxine Compared With Placebo in Major Depressive Disorder Patients by Age Group and Severity of Depression at Baseline

PURPOSE

This post hoc meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of desvenlafaxine 50 and 100 mg versus placebo across age groups and severity of depression at baseline in patients with major depressive disorder.

METHODS

Data from placebo and desvenlafaxine 50-mg and 100-mg dose arms were pooled from 9 short-term, placebo-controlled, major depressive disorder studies (N = 4279). Effects of age (18-40 years, >40 to <55 years, 55-<65 years, and ≥65 years) and baseline depression severity (mild, 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression total score [HAM-D17] ≤18; moderate, HAM-D17 >18 to <25; severe, HAM-D17 ≥25) on desvenlafaxine efficacy were assessed using analysis of covariance for continuous end points and logistic regression for categorical end points.

FINDINGS

Desvenlafaxine-treated (50 or 100 mg/d) patients had significantly (P < 0.05, 2-sided) greater improvement in most measures of depression and function compared with placebo for patients 18 to 40 years, older than 40 to younger than 55 years, and 55 to younger than 65 years, with no significant evidence of an effect of age. Desvenlafaxine significantly improved most measures of depression and function in moderately and severely depressed patients. There was a significant baseline severity by treatment interaction for HAM-D17 total score only (P = 0.027), with a larger treatment effect for the severely depressed group.

IMPLICATIONS

Desvenlafaxine significantly improved depressive symptoms in patients younger than 65 years and in patients with moderate or severe baseline depression. Sample sizes were not adequate to assess desvenlafaxine efficacy in patients 65 years or older or with mild baseline depression.

The effect of vortioxetine on overall patient functioning in patients with major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND

The objectives of this meta-analysis of data from randomized, placebo-controlled studies were to assess the effect of vortioxetine on overall functioning (primary) and functional remission (secondary) using the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHODS

Data from nine short-term (6/8 weeks) pivotal studies that included patient functioning assessments were included in this random-effects meta-analysis, which used aggregated study-level data for all therapeutic vortioxetine doses and a mixed-effect model for repeated measures using the full analysis set.

RESULTS

A total of 4,216 patients received ≥1 dose of study treatment (1,522 placebo, 2,694 vortioxetine 5-20 mg/day). At study end, the meta-analysis showed improvement for vortioxetine versus placebo (n = 911) in SDS total score (vortioxetine 5 mg, n = 564, change from baseline versus placebo [Δ] -0.24, p = NS; 10 mg, n = 445, Δ -1.68, p ≤ .001; 15 mg, n = 204, Δ -0.91, p = NS; 20 mg, n = 340, Δ -1.94, p ≤ .01). Functional remission (SDS total score ≤6) was observed with vortioxetine 10 mg (n = 170/573; odds ratio [OR] relative to placebo 1.7, p < .001) and 20 mg (n = 144/447; OR 1.6, p < .05), but not 5 mg (n = 207/757; OR 1.1, p = NS) or 15 mg (n = 92/295; OR 1.3, p = NS).

CONCLUSION

Vortioxetine 5-20 mg for 6/8 weeks improved overall patient functioning in patients with MDD. Relative to placebo, vortioxetine 10 and 20 mg demonstrated significant improvement in SDS total score and functional remission.

Multidimensional prediction of treatment response to antidepressants with cognitive control and functional MRI

Predicting treatment response for major depressive disorder can provide a tremendous benefit for our overstretched health care system by reducing number of treatments and time to remission, thereby decreasing morbidity. The present study used neural and performance predictors during a cognitive control task to predict treatment response (% change in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale pre- to post-treatment). Forty-nine individuals diagnosed with major depressive disorder were enrolled with intent to treat in the open-label study; 36 completed treatment, had useable data, and were included in most data analyses. Participants included in the data analysis sample received treatment with escitalopram (n = 22) or duloxetine (n = 14) for 10 weeks. Functional MRI and performance during a Parametric Go/No-go test were used to predict per cent reduction in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores after treatment. Haemodynamic response function-based contrasts and task-related independent components analysis (subset of sample: n = 29) were predictors. Independent components analysis component beta weights and haemodynamic response function modelling activation during Commission errors in the rostral and dorsal anterior cingulate, mid-cingulate, dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, and lateral orbital frontal cortex predicted treatment response. In addition, more commission errors on the task predicted better treatment response. Together in a regression model, independent component analysis, haemodynamic response function-modelled, and performance measures predicted treatment response with 90% accuracy (compared to 74% accuracy with clinical features alone), with 84% accuracy in 5-fold, leave-one-out cross-validation. Convergence between performance markers and functional magnetic resonance imaging, including novel independent component analysis techniques, achieved high accuracy in prediction of treatment response for major depressive disorder. The strong link to a task paradigm provided by use of independent component analysis is a potential breakthrough that can inform ways in which prediction models can be integrated for use in clinical and experimental medicine studies.

The effects of desvenlafaxine on neurocognitive and work functioning in employed outpatients with major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is associated with staggering personal and economic costs, a major proportion of which stem from impaired psychosocial and occupational functioning. Few studies have examined the impact of depression-related cognitive dysfunction on work functioning. We examined the association between neurocognitive and work functioning in employed patients with MDD.

METHODS

Employed adult outpatients (n=36) with MDD of at least moderate severity (≥23 on the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale, MADRS) and subjective cognitive complaints completed neurocognitive tests (CNS Vital Signs computerized battery) and validated self-reports of their work functioning (LEAPS, HPQ) before and after 8 weeks of open-label treatment with flexibly-dosed desvenlafaxine 50-100mg/day. Relationships between neurocognitive tests and functional measures were examined using bivariate correlational and multiple regression analyses, as appropriate. An ANCOVA model examined whether significant change in neurocognitive performance, defined as improvement of ≥1SD in the Neurocognition Index (NCI) from baseline to post-treatment, was associated with improved outcomes.

RESULTS

Patients showed significant improvements in depressive symptom, neurocognitive, and work functioning measures following treatment with desvenlafaxine (e.g., MADRS response=77% and MADRS remission=49%). There were no significant correlations between changes in NCI or cognitive domain subscales and changes in MADRS, LEAPS, or HPQ scores. However, patients demonstrating significant improvement in NCI scores (n=11, 29%) had significantly greater improvement in clinical and work functioning outcomes compared to those without NCI improvement.

LIMITATIONS

The limitations of this study include small sample size, lack of a placebo control group, and lack of a healthy comparison group. Our sample also had more years of education and higher premorbid intelligence than the general population.

CONCLUSIONS

There were no significant correlations between changes in neurocognitive and work functioning measures in this study. However, meaningful improvement in neurocognitive functioning with desvenlafaxine was associated with greater improvement in both mood and occupational outcomes. This suggests that addressing cognitive dysfunction may improve clinical and occupational outcomes in employed patients with MDD. However, the relationship between neurocognitive and work functioning in MDD is complex and requires further study.

Overcoming functional impairment in postpartum depressed or anxious women: a pilot trial of desvenlafaxine with flexible dosing

OBJECTIVES

Antidepressants are the first line treatment for moderate to severe major depressive disorder (MDD) in perinatal and general populations. However, there appears to be paucity of evidence around antidepressant use in women with postpartum depression or anxiety. Selection of an appropriate antidepressant is crucial in promoting efficacy, optimizing tolerability, and managing comorbid anxiety or depression. Our aim was to investigate the treatment effect and tolerability profile of desvenlafaxine, and to examine the functionality of women with postpartum depression or anxiety after desvenlafaxine treatment.

METHODS

Fifteen postpartum women with depression or anxiety completed this 12-week prospective pilot study with a flexible dose of desvenlafaxine (50-100 mg). Participants were recruited at a tertiary care level program. Measures of depression (Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, MADRS), anxiety (Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, HAM-A), worry (Penn State Worry Questionnaire, PSWQ) and functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale, SDS) were completed at baseline, 8 weeks, and 12 weeks.

RESULTS

In the intention-to-treat analysis (n = 17), the majority of women responded to medication (88.2%, n = 15), and reached remission of depressive (82.4%, n = 14) and anxiety symptoms (82.4%, n = 14). Remission of depression was achieved in a mean of 6.9 weeks [standard deviation (SD) = 3.01] at a mean dose of 71 mg/day (SD = 25.7). Significant decreases were observed on PSWQ worry scores (p < 0.0001) and SDS scores for social (p < 0.0001) and family life impairment (p < 0.0001). The medication was generally well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

The results of our prospective pilot study suggest that treatment with desvenlafaxine of postpartum mothers with depression or anxiety can lead to symptom remission and restoration of functionality.

The effect of desvenlafaxine on cognitive functioning in employed outpatients with major depressive disorder: a substudy of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

The objective of this substudy was to examine the effect of desvenlafaxine 50 mg/day compared with placebo on cognitive function in employed outpatients with major depressive disorder. A total of 11/55 (20%) study sites in a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial administered cognitive assessments in memory, attention, and executive functioning domains using the cognitive drug research system. Changes from baseline were subjected to analysis of covariance with baseline levels as covariates, using last observation carried forward data. A significant improvement with desvenlafaxine 50 mg/day (n=52) compared with placebo (n=29) was observed on the quality of working memory composite measure (0.081 units (0.005, 0.156); P=0.0365) at last observation carried forward. Improvement from baseline on the speed of working memory composite was significant for desvenlafaxine (-226.6 msec (-316.7, -136.4); P<0.0001) and for placebo (-133.3 msec (-257.2, -9.4); P=0.0354); however, the treatment effect was not significant. No significant differences between groups were observed on composite measures for attention. Treatment of depression with desvenlafaxine 50 mg/day may improve aspects of cognitive functioning, including working memory.Clinical Trial Registry No.: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00824291.

The Effects of Newer Antidepressants on Occupational Impairment in Major Depressive Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

A substantial proportion of the disease burden of major depressive disorder (MDD) results from impairments in occupational functioning, including disability and reduced productivity. Accumulating evidence suggests that antidepressants can improve functional as well as symptomatic outcomes in patients with MDD. We examined the treatment effects of newer antidepressants on occupational impairment in MDD, based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov for the period 1 January 1992 to 15 June 2015 to identify RCTs of newer antidepressants (excluding tricyclic antidepressants and monoamine oxidase inhibitors), with or without a placebo condition, that included a validated measure of occupational functioning in patients with MDD. Abstracts were scanned for eligibility by two independent reviewers and investigators of unpublished studies were contacted to obtain data. Study data were extracted and double-entered for accuracy. We selected the Sheehan Disability Scale Work/School subscale (SDS-Work) for the meta-analysis because it was the most consistently used assessment of occupational impairment. Analysis employed a random-effects model.

RESULTS

The systematic review initially identified 42 RCTs but only 28 (67 %) had data on occupational outcomes that were published or obtained from investigators. The SDS-Work subscale was used in 25 of 28 trials; five other assessments of occupational functioning were used in seven trials. Data were synthesized from 17 placebo-controlled studies (n = 7031) that used the SDS-Work subscale. Antidepressants (n = 4722) were significantly superior to placebo (n = 2309) in improving SDS-Work scores at 8 weeks, with a mean difference of 0.73 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.60-0.86] and a standardized mean difference of 0.28 (95 % CI 0.23-0.33), representing small effects.

LIMITATIONS

Few included trials reported on the employment status of their samples, and most trials were of short-term treatment duration (8-12 weeks). Several RCTs that collected data on occupational outcomes were also excluded from the review and meta-analysis because their data were unpublished and unobtainable.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis suggests that newer antidepressants have a small, positive impact on occupational impairment in the short-term, but the clinical significance of this impact is questionable. To improve assessment of this important outcome, future research studies should use more comprehensive measures of occupational functioning, productivity and impairment, and longer treatment durations.

An integrated analysis of the efficacy and safety of desvenlafaxine in the treatment of major depressive disorder

The chronic course of major depressive disorder (MDD) often impedes the ability of patients to achieve full remission. Return of full functioning is a critical goal of antidepressant pharmacotherapy as the presence of residual depressive symptoms is associated with an increased risk of relapse. Treatment guidelines recommend selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, or atypical antidepressants as first-line treatment for moderate to severe MDD. Desvenlafaxine, administered as desvenlafaxine succinate, is an serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor approved for the treatment of adults with MDD at the recommended dose of 50 mg/day. The aim of this integrated analysis was to assess the efficacy and safety of desvenlafaxine 50 and 100 mg/day compared with placebo in adult outpatients with MDD. The analysis used data from nine fixed-dose, short-term, placebo-controlled studies in adult outpatients diagnosed with MDD who had depressive symptoms for at least 30 days. Data from 4279 and 4317 patients were pooled for the efficacy and safety analyses, respectively. Statistically significant improvements were observed with desvenlafaxine 50 and 100 mg/day versus placebo for all efficacy endpoints assessed, including improvements in depressive symptoms, response and remission rates, as well as functional and cognitive outcomes. Treatment with desvenlafaxine 50 and 100 mg/day was generally safe and well tolerated. The findings of this integrated analysis of data from a large population of patients with MDD confirmed the antidepressant efficacy of both desvenlafaxine doses and add to previous evidence supporting the efficacy of desvenlafaxine.

Inclusion/exclusion criteria in placebo-controlled studies of vortioxetine: Comparison to other antidepressants and implications for product labeling

BACKGROUND

We recently conducted a comprehensive review of the psychiatric inclusion/exclusion criteria used in 170 placebo-controlled antidepressant efficacy trials (AETs) published during the past 20 years and found that the criteria of more recent studies were significantly more restrictive than prior studies. Vortioxetine is the most recently approved medication for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). We compared the inclusion/exclusion criteria of the vortioxetine studies to the criteria used in other AETs, and discuss the broader issue of the generalizability of AETs and the implications this might have for the labeling of antidepressants receiving FDA approval.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature review of placebo-controlled AETs published from January, 1995 through December, 2014. We identified 170 AETs published during this 20 year period and compared the inclusion/exclusion criteria used in the 12 studies of vortioxetine to those used in the nonvortioxetine studies. A second analysis compared vortioxetine to the 3 antidepressants most recently approved prior to vortioxetine (desvenlafaxine, levomilnacipran extended release, vilazodone).

RESULTS

Compared to the nonvortioxetine AETs, the vortioxetine studies significantly more often excluded patients with any comorbid Axis I disorder (p<.001) and more often required the current depressive episode to be longer than the DSM minimum symptom duration requirement of 2 weeks (p<.01). The cutoff on the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale required for inclusion in the vortioxetine studies was higher than the cutoff used in the other AETs (p<.01).

LIMITATIONS

A limitation of the present analysis is that it was based on published placebo-controlled studies of antidepressants.

CONCLUSION

The inclusion/exclusion criteria in the studies of vortioxetine were more restrictive than the criteria used in other AETs. Inconsistent with FDA guidelines on the labeling of medications, the label of vortioxetine does not include a description of the limits to the group of patients with MDD for whom the medication has been shown to be effective.

Functioning in patients with major depression treated with duloxetine or a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor in East Asia

PURPOSE

To assess and compare the levels of functioning in patients with major depressive disorder treated with either duloxetine with a daily dose of ≤60 mg or a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) as monotherapy for up to 6 months in a naturalistic setting in East Asia. In addition, this study examined the impact of painful physical symptoms (PPS) on the effects of these treatments.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data for this post hoc analysis were taken from a 6-month prospective observational study involving 1,549 patients with major depressive disorder without sexual dysfunction. The present analysis focused on a subgroup of patients from East Asia (n=587). Functioning was measured using the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS). Depression severity was assessed using the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self Report. PPS were rated using the modified Somatic Symptom Inventory. A mixed model with repeated measures was fitted to compare the levels of functioning between duloxetine-treated (n=227) and SSRI-treated (n=225) patients, adjusting for baseline patient characteristics.

RESULTS

The mean SDS total score was similar between the two treatment cohorts (15.46 [standard deviation =6.11] in the duloxetine cohort and 16.36 [standard deviation =6.53] in the SSRI cohort, P=0.077) at baseline. Both descriptive and regression analyses confirmed improvement in functioning in both groups during follow-up, but duloxetine-treated patients achieved better functioning. At 24 weeks, the estimated mean SDS total score was 4.48 (standard error =0.80) in the duloxetine cohort, which was statistically significantly lower (ie, better functioning) than that of 6.76 (standard error =0.77) in the SSRI cohort (P<0.001). This treatment difference was more apparent in the subgroup of patients with PPS at baseline. Similar patterns were also observed for SDS subscores (work, social life, and family life).

CONCLUSION

Depressed patients treated with duloxetine achieved better functioning compared to those treated with SSRIs. This treatment difference was mostly driven by patients with PPS at baseline.

Effect of metabolic syndrome and thyroid hormone on efficacy of desvenlafaxine 50 and 100 mg/d in major depressive disorder

OBJECTIVE

This pooled, post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy of desvenlafaxine vs placebo in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) with and without metabolic syndrome, and above or at or below median baseline thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to receive desvenlafaxine 50 or 100 mg/d or placebo in nine short-term, double-blind studies. Metabolic syndrome was defined as meeting at least three of five criteria based on body mass index, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein, fasting glucose, blood pressure, current medication, and medical history.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT00072774; NCT00277823; NCT00300378; NCT00384033; NCT00798707; NCT00863798; NCT01121484; NCT00824291; NCT01432457.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Treatment effects on change from baseline in 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D17) total score at week 8 (last observation carried forward [LOCF]) were analyzed in four subgroups-metabolic syndrome and no metabolic syndrome, baseline TSH levels above median or at or below median-using analysis of covariance with treatment, study, and baseline in the model. Metabolic syndrome and TSH were examined as predictors of change in HAM-D17 total score using regression analysis.

RESULTS

The pooled analysis included 4279 patients; 971 (22.7%) patients had metabolic syndrome. In all subgroups, HAM-D17 total scores improved significantly from baseline to week 8 (LOCF) with desvenlafaxine 50 or 100 mg/d compared with placebo (all p ≤ 0.006). There was no significant treatment by metabolic syndrome or by TSH interaction. Neither metabolic syndrome nor TSH above median predicted change in HAM-D17 total scores, response (≥50% reduction in HAM-D17 total score), or remission (HAM-D17 total score ≤7; all p > 0.05).

LIMITATIONS

Individual studies included in this analysis were not designed to examine the relationship between metabolic syndrome or TSH and response to desvenlafaxine treatment. Metabolic syndrome status was determined post hoc based on available baseline measures and not diagnosed at study entry. Exclusion criteria were selected to enroll medically healthy patients with a primary diagnosis of MDD (i.e., patients healthier than the general MDD population).

CONCLUSIONS

Desvenlafaxine 50 and 100 mg/d significantly improved depression compared with placebo in patients with and without metabolic syndrome, and in patients with baseline TSH above median and at or below median levels.

Comparison of efficacy, safety and brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) levels in patients of major depressive disorder, treated with fluoxetine and desvenlafaxine

This randomized, open label, prospective, observational study compared clinical efficacy, safety alongwith plasma BDNF levels in outpatients of depression treated with fluoxetine and desvenlafaxine. Patients (aged 18-60 years) with moderate to severe major depressive disorder (MDD) diagnosed by DSM-IV criteria, and Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) score ≥14, who were prescribed fluoxetine or desvenlafaxine were included (n=30 in each group). Patients were followed up for 12 weeks for evaluation of clinical efficacy, safety along with BDNF levels. In the fluoxetine group, HAM-D scores at the start of treatment was 19±4.09 which significantly (p<0.05) reduced to 9.24±3.98 at 12 weeks. In the desvenlafaxine group, HAM-D scores at the start of treatment was 18±3.75 which significantly (p<0.05) reduced to 10±3.75 at 12 weeks. The BDNF levels in the fluoxetine group were 775.32±30.38pg/ml at the start of treatment which significantly (p<0.05) increased to 850.3±24.92pg/ml at 12 weeks. The BDNF levels in the desvenlafaxine group were 760.5±28.53pg/ml at the start of treatment which significantly (p<0.05) increased to 845.8±32.82pg/ml at 12 weeks. Both the antidepressants were found to be safe and well tolerated. The efficacy and the safety profile of desvenlafaxine is comparable to fluoxetine in patients of MDD. BDNF levels were significantly increased post-treatment with both the antidepressive agents. Whether BDNF may have a prognostic value in predicting treatment response to antidepressant drugs needs to be investigated in a larger patient population.

Effects of 50 and 100 mg desvenlafaxine versus placebo on sexual function in patients with major depressive disorder: a meta-analysis

The primary objective of this post-hoc analysis was to evaluate the effect of short-term treatment with desvenlafaxine versus placebo on sexual dysfunction (SD), assessed from Arizona Sexual Experiences Scale scores, in adult outpatients with major depressive disorder. Data from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of 50 or 100 mg/day desvenlafaxine for major depressive disorder were pooled. SD status, determined from Arizona Sexual Experiences Scale scores, was assessed at baseline and week 8, last observation carried forward. Subgroup analyses addressed the effects of sex, baseline SD, and antidepressant response. At week 8, last observation carried forward (n=1562), SD rates were 54, 47, and 49% for 50 mg/day desvenlafaxine, 100 mg/day desvenlafaxine, and placebo, respectively [adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence interval) vs. placebo: 1.205 (0.928, 1.564) and 1.129 (0.795, 1.604), respectively]. The treatment by baseline SD interaction approached statistical significance (P=0.0663), mainly driven by poorer scores for desvenlafaxine versus placebo in the 100 mg group. Treatment by sex interactions were not statistically significant. Small but statistically significant treatment by sex interactions were observed for sex drive (P=0.0011) and ease of erection/lubrication (P=0.0151). Although there was no overall effect of desvenlafaxine on SD, a treatment by baseline SD interaction was suggested for 100 mg desvenlafaxine.

Efficacy of Desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d Versus Placebo in the Long-Term Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder: A Randomized, Double-Blind Trial

OBJECTIVE

To examine long-term (11-month) antidepressant efficacy of desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d across a broad range of clinical and functional outcomes in patients with major depressive disorder.

METHOD

Adult outpatients (≥ 18 years) with major depressive disorder (DSM-IV criteria) and a 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) total score ≥ 20 at screening and baseline who responded to 8 weeks of open-label desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d and had a continuing stable response through week 20 were randomly assigned to receive placebo or desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d in a 6-month, double-blind, randomized withdrawal period. Depressive symptoms were evaluated using the HDRS-17, 6-item HDRS, and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Ilness and -Improvement (CGI-S, CGI-I). Health outcomes included the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire and the World Health Organization 5-Item Well-Being Index (WHO-5). The trial was conducted from June 2009 to March 2011 at 87 study sites in 14 countries worldwide.

RESULTS

Of 874 patients enrolled in open-label treatment, 548 patients were randomly assigned to receive double-blind placebo (n = 276) or desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d (n = 272). At the end of the 6-month double-blind treatment, improvements in depressive symptoms were better maintained among the desvenlafaxine- than placebo-treated patients on all efficacy endpoints (all P ≤ .001); in the desvenlafaxine group, 21.8% (vs 42.9% in the placebo group) had CGI-I ratings of 5, 6, and 7 (minimally worse/much worse/very much worse), and 74.4% met criteria for remission (placebo: 54.2%). WPAI and WHO-5 scores indicated significantly better productivity and well-being with continued desvenlafaxine (vs placebo, P ≤ .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term treatment with desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d maintained improvements in major depressive disorder among adult outpatients who exhibited a stable therapeutic response.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00887224.

A Post Hoc Analysis of the Effect of Weight on Efficacy in Depressed Patients Treated With Desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d and 100 mg/d

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of baseline body mass index (BMI) on efficacy and weight change in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) treated with desvenlafaxine or placebo in a pooled, post hoc analysis.

METHOD

Adults with MDD were randomly assigned to placebo or desvenlafaxine (50 mg or 100 mg) in 8 short-term, double-blind studies and 1 longer-term randomized withdrawal study (the studies were published between 2007 and 2013). Change from baseline in 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) total score at week 8 was analyzed in normal (BMI ≤ 25 kg/m(2)), overweight (25 kg/m(2) < BMI ≤ 30 kg/m(2)), and obese (BMI > 30 kg/m(2)) subgroups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Weight change was analyzed in BMI subgroups using ANCOVA and a mixed-effects model for repeated measures.

RESULTS

Desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d or 100 mg/d improved HDRS-17 scores significantly from baseline to week 8 (last observation carried forward) versus placebo in all BMI subgroups (normal: n = 1,122; overweight: n = 960; obese: n = 1,302; all P ≤ .0027); improvement was greatest in normal BMI patients. There was a statistically significant decrease in weight (< 1 kg) with short-term desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d and 100 mg/d versus placebo in all BMI subgroups (all P < .0001). In the randomized withdrawal study (n = 548), no statistically significant difference in weight was observed for desvenlafaxine versus placebo in any BMI subgroup. Baseline BMI predicted weight change in short-term and longer-term desvenlafaxine treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Desvenlafaxine significantly improved symptoms of depression versus placebo regardless of baseline BMI. In all BMI subgroups, desvenlafaxine was associated with statistically significant weight loss (< 1 kg) versus placebo over 8 weeks, but no significant differences longer term.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT00072774, NCT00277823, NCT00300378, NCT00384033, NCT00798707, NCT00863798, NCT01121484, NCT00824291, NCT00887224.

Effects of desvenlafaxine on blood pressure in patients treated for major depressive disorder: a pooled analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of the serotonin-norepinephrine re-uptake inhibitor desvenlafaxine on blood pressure and incidence of new onset hypertension in pooled short-term studies and in two longer-term, randomized withdrawal studies.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Data from patients randomly assigned to desvenlafaxine 10 mg to 400 mg/day or placebo in 11 short-term (8-12 weeks), fixed-dose, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of major depressive disorder (MDD) were pooled for analysis; two desvenlafaxine randomized withdrawal studies (36 and 46 weeks) were analyzed separately.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.clinicaltrials.gov , NCT00072774, NCT00073762, NCT00277823, NCT00300378, NCT00384033, NCT00798707, NCT00863798, NCT01121484, NCT00824291, NCT01432457, NCT00075257, NCT00887224.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcomes included change from baseline in supine systolic blood pressure (SSBP) and supine diastolic blood pressure (SDBP), assessed using a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis, and incidence of hypertension (defined as three consecutive second SDBP measures ≥90 mm Hg AND increase of ≥10 mm Hg from baseline and/or SSBP ≥140 mm Hg AND increase of ≥10 mm Hg), analyzed using Cochran Mantel Hanzael tests. Potential predictors of change in SSBP and SDBP at LOCF were examined by including predictor variables in a regression model.

RESULTS

In the pooled, short-term studies, mean changes from baseline over time in SSBP and SDBP were statistically significant compared with placebo for the desvenlafaxine doses of 10 mg/day or greater for SSBP (p ≤ 0.0004; MMRM) and 25 mg/day or greater for SDBP (p ≤ 0.0449; MMRM). The proportion of patients with new onset hypertension differed significantly from placebo for the 50, 200, and 400 mg/day doses (1.9%, 2.4%, 4.8%, respectively, vs 0.8%; all p ≤ 0.0244). Predictors of change in BP included baseline SDBP, baseline SSBP, dose, body mass index, gender, age, race, and history of hypertension.

LIMITATIONS

Data were pooled from studies which differed somewhat in study design and patient demographics. None of the studies were originally designed to examine treatment effects on BP. Study entry criteria limit generalization of these results to medically stable patients with a primary diagnosis of MDD.

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term desvenlafaxine treatment was associated with small but statistically significant increases in SSBP and SDBP.

How the Probability and Potential Clinical Significance of Pharmacokinetically Mediated Drug-Drug Interactions Are Assessed in Drug Development: Desvenlafaxine as an Example

OBJECTIVE

The avoidance of adverse drug-drug interactions (DDIs) is a high priority in terms of both the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the individual prescriber. With this perspective in mind, this article illustrates the process for assessing the risk of a drug (example here being desvenlafaxine) causing or being the victim of DDIs, in accordance with FDA guidance.

DATA SOURCES/STUDY SELECTION

DDI studies for the serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor desvenlafaxine conducted by the sponsor and published since 2009 are used as examples of the systematic way that the FDA requires drug developers to assess whether their new drug is either capable of causing clinically meaningful DDIs or being the victim of such DDIs. In total, 8 open-label studies tested the effects of steady-state treatment with desvenlafaxine (50-400 mg/d) on the pharmacokinetics of cytochrome (CYP) 2D6 and/or CYP 3A4 substrate drugs, or the effect of CYP 3A4 inhibition on desvenlafaxine pharmacokinetics. The potential for DDIs mediated by the P-glycoprotein (P-gp) transporter was assessed in in vitro studies using Caco-2 monolayers.

DATA EXTRACTION

Changes in area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC; CYP studies) and efflux (P-gp studies) were reviewed for potential DDIs in accordance with FDA criteria.

RESULTS

Desvenlafaxine coadministration had minimal effect on CYP 2D6 and/or 3A4 substrates per FDA criteria. Changes in AUC indicated either no interaction (90% confidence intervals for the ratio of AUC geometric least-squares means [GM] within 80%-125%) or weak inhibition (AUC GM ratio 125% to < 200%). Coadministration with ketoconazole resulted in a weak interaction with desvenlafaxine (AUC GM ratio of 143%). Desvenlafaxine was not a substrate (efflux ratio < 2) or inhibitor (50% inhibitory drug concentration values > 250 μM) of P-gp.

CONCLUSIONS

A 2-step process based on FDA guidance can be used first to determine whether a pharmacokinetically mediated interaction occurs and then to assess the potential clinical significance of the DDI. In the case of the drug tested in this series of studies, the potential for clinically meaningful DDIs mediated by CYP 2D6, CYP 3A4, or P-gp was found to be low.

The efficacy of antidepressants on overall well-being and self-reported depression symptom severity in youth: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent meta-analyses of the efficacy of second-generation antidepressants for youth have concluded that such drugs possess a statistically significant advantage over placebo in terms of clinician-rated depressive symptoms. However, no meta-analysis has included measures of quality of life, global mental health, self-esteem, or autonomy. Further, prior meta-analyses have not included self-reports of depressive symptoms.

METHODS

Studies were selected through searching Medline, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials databases as well as GlaxoSmithKline's online trial registry. We included self-reports of depressive symptoms and pooled measures of quality of life, global mental health, self-esteem, and autonomous functioning as a proxy for overall well-being.

RESULTS

We found a nonsignificant difference between second-generation antidepressants and placebo in terms of self-reported depressive symptoms (k = 6 trials, g = 0.06, p = 0.36). Further, pooled across measures of quality of life, global mental health, self-esteem, and autonomy, antidepressants yielded no significant advantage over placebo (k = 3 trials, g = 0.11, p = 0.13).

DISCUSSION

Though limited by a small number of trials, our analyses suggest that antidepressants offer little to no benefit in improving overall well-being among depressed children and adolescents.

Interventions to improve return to work in depressed people

BACKGROUND

Work disability such as sickness absence is common in people with depression.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing work disability in employees with depressive disorders.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO until January 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs of work-directed and clinical interventions for depressed people that included sickness absence as an outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted the data and assessed trial quality. We used standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to pool study results in the studies we judged to be sufficiently similar. We used GRADE to rate the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 studies with 26 study arms, involving 5996 participants with either a major depressive disorder or a high level of depressive symptoms. We judged 14 studies to have a high risk of bias and nine to have a low risk of bias. Work-directed interventions We identified five work-directed interventions. There was moderate quality evidence that a work-directed intervention added to a clinical intervention reduced sickness absence (SMD -0.40; 95% CI -0.66 to -0.14; 3 studies) compared to a clinical intervention alone.There was moderate quality evidence based on a single study that enhancing the clinical care in addition to regular work-directed care was not more effective than work-directed care alone (SMD -0.14; 95% CI -0.49 to 0.21).There was very low quality evidence based on one study that regular care by occupational physicians that was enhanced with an exposure-based return to work program did not reduce sickness absence compared to regular care by occupational physicians (non-significant finding: SMD 0.45; 95% CI -0.00 to 0.91). Clinical interventions, antidepressant medication Three studies compared the effectiveness of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) to selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) medication on reducing sickness absence and yielded highly inconsistent results. Clinical interventions, psychological We found moderate quality evidence based on three studies that telephone or online cognitive behavioural therapy was more effective in reducing sick leave than usual primary or occupational care (SMD -0.23; 95% CI -0.45 to -0.01). Clinical interventions, psychological combined with antidepressant medication We found low quality evidence based on two studies that enhanced primary care did not substantially decrease sickness absence in the medium term (4 to 12 months) (SMD -0.02; 95% CI -0.15 to 0.12). A third study found no substantial effect on sickness absence in favour of this intervention in the long term (24 months).We found high quality evidence, based on one study, that a structured telephone outreach and care management program was more effective in reducing sickness absence than usual care (SMD - 0.21; 95% CI -0.37 to -0.05). Clinical interventions, exercise We found low quality evidence based on one study that supervised strength exercise reduced sickness absence compared to relaxation (SMD -1.11; 95% CI -1.68 to -0.54). We found moderate quality evidence based on two studies that aerobic exercise was no more effective in reducing sickness absence than relaxation or stretching (SMD -0.06; 95% CI -0.36 to 0.24).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found moderate quality evidence that adding a work-directed intervention to a clinical intervention reduced the number of days on sick leave compared to a clinical intervention alone. We also found moderate quality evidence that enhancing primary or occupational care with cognitive behavioural therapy reduced sick leave compared to the usual care. A structured telephone outreach and care management program that included medication reduced sickness absence compared to usual care. However, enhancing primary care with a quality improvement program did not have a considerable effect on sickness absence. There was no evidence of a difference in effect on sickness absence of one antidepressant medication compared to another. More studies are needed on work-directed interventions. Clinical intervention studies should also include work outcomes to increase our knowledge on reducing sickness absence in depressed workers.

Predictors of functional response and remission with desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d in patients with major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND

The predictive value of early functional improvement for treatment success at week 8 was assessed in a pooled analysis in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHODS

Data were pooled from 7 double-blind studies in adult patients with MDD randomly assigned to desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d or placebo. Four levels of treatment success were determined at week 8 for patients with baseline Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) score > 12 (N = 2156): functional response (SDS ≤12 and ≥50% improvement in SDS), functional/depression response (SDS ≤12 and ≥50% improvement in both SDS and 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HAM-D17] score), functional remission (SDS < 7), and functional/depression remission (SDS < 7 and HAM-D17 ≤7). Week 2 improvement in SDS was evaluated as a predictor of later functional response/remission using receiver operating characteristic analysis. Odds ratios (ORs) of the predictability of improvement thresholds were computed from a logistic regression model.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients achieving each level of treatment success was significantly greater for patients treated with desvenlafaxine (40%, 32%, 23%, 15%, respectively) vs placebo (31%, 22%, 17%, 10%; all P ≤ 0.002). Early change in SDS was a highly significant predictor of functional response/remission (ORs, 0.958-0.970; all P < 0.0001). Discussion Patients' early functional response to desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d is predictive of treatment success.

How well do clinicians and patients agree on depression treatment outcomes? Implications for personalized medicine

OBJECTIVE

In order to inform outcomes assessments in personalized medicine research, we evaluated the level of agreement between self-reported (SR) and clinician-rated (CR) measures of depression severity before and after treatment with an antidepressant medication.

METHODS

We pooled data from three trials (totaling 2075 patients) assessing the efficacy of antidepressant monotherapy in major depressive disorder. Differences between CR (17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HAM-D17]) and SR (30-item Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Rated) scale scores were used to determine concordance between CR-SR ratings. The effect of anxiety (HAMD17 anxiety-somatization subscale score ≥7) on SR-CR agreement was also assessed.

RESULTS

The CR-SR scale agreement was good for response (κ = 0.64) and moderate for remission (κ = 0.57). Patients who rated their depression as less severe than the clinician were significantly more likely to respond to treatment than over-reporters (odds ratio = 1.62; 95% confidence interval: 1.17-2.25). Although anxiety did not impact the level of agreement, among patients with SR-CR discordance, high anxiety was associated with over-reporting of depression severity.

CONCLUSION

The levels of disagreement for response and remission were too high for CR and SR scales to be considered interchangeable for research on patient-level outcomes. Anxiety does not meaningfully impact SR-CR agreement.

The effect of desvenlafaxine 50 mg/day on a subpopulation of anxious/depressed patients: a pooled analysis of seven randomized, placebo-controlled studies

BACKGROUND

Desvenlafaxine (administered as desvenlafaxine succinate) for anxious depression was assessed in a post hoc analysis.

METHODS

Data were pooled from patients randomly assigned to desvenlafaxine 50 mg/day or placebo in seven double-blind, fixed-dose studies in adults with major depressive disorder. Patients with "anxious depression" had baseline 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, anxiety-somatization factor (HAM-D17 A/S) scores ≥7. Primary end point was change in HAM-D17 scores from baseline at week 8 (last observation carried forward), evaluated using analysis of covariance with treatment, study, and baseline value as covariates.

RESULTS

A total of 1873/2706 (69%) patients were identified as "anxious depressed". Desvenlafaxine significantly improved HAM-D17 total scores versus placebo in anxious (adjusted mean [95% CI] -1.72 [-2.35, -1.09]; p < 0.001) and nonanxious (-1.48 [-2.40, -0.57]; p = 0.002) populations, with no significant treatment-by-anxiety interaction. Response and remission rates (HAM-D17 ) were significantly higher with desvenlafaxine compared with placebo in both populations. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 78% and 69% (desvenlafaxine versus placebo, respectively) of anxious depressed patients and by 77% and 68% of nonanxious patients.

CONCLUSION

Desvenlafaxine 50 mg/day significantly improved depressive symptoms compared with placebo in major depressive disorder patients with clinically relevant anxiety symptoms. Improvement in the HAM-D17 total score was similar for anxious/nonanxious groups.