Escitalopram versus serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors as second step treatment for patients with major depressive disorder: a pooled analysis

Results from a long-term open-label extension study of adjunctive buprenorphine/samidorphan combination in patients with major depressive disorder

Buprenorphine/samidorphan (BUP/SAM; ALKS 5461) is an investigational opioid system modulator for the adjunctive treatment of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), who did not respond adequately to prior antidepressant therapy (ADT). FORWARD-2, an open-label extension study, assessed long-term safety and tolerability of adjunctive BUP/SAM treatment in these patients. Patients from four short-term trials and de novo patients were enrolled; all had confirmed MDD and a current major depressive episode lasting 2-24 months. Patients were treated with an established ADT for ≥8 weeks before receiving sublingual, adjunctive BUP/SAM 2 mg/2 mg for up to 52 weeks. Safety (primary objective) was assessed via adverse events (AEs), the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale, and the Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS). Exploratory evaluation of efficacy was done using the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Of 1485 patients, 50% completed the study and 11% discontinued due to AEs. AEs of nausea, headache, constipation, dizziness, and somnolence, each occurred in ≥10% of patients. There was no evidence of increased suicidal ideation or behavior. Euphoria-related AEs were uncommon (1.2%). Following abrupt BUP/SAM discontinuation, "drug withdrawal" AEs were infrequent (0.4%), and the incidence of COWS categorical worsening after abrupt drug discontinuation was low (6.5%). Improvements in mean MADRS scores were maintained until study end, suggesting durability of antidepressant effect in patients continuing treatment. BUP/SAM was generally well tolerated, with a low risk of abuse and an AE profile consistent with those seen in placebo-controlled studies. Withdrawal reports were uncommon and of limited clinical impact.

Attrition in treatment-resistant depression: predictors and clinical impact

The aim of this study was to investigate attrition (dropout) during a second antidepressant trial in treatment-resistant depression. Three hundred forty-two outpatients with major depressive disorder and lack of response to a prior antidepressant were treated with venlafaxine for 6 weeks. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were compared between the attrition and non-attrition groups. Attrition was reported in 65 patients (19%), of whom 30 patients (46%) dropped out within week 4. The characteristics of dropout patients included a longer duration of depressive episode (P = 0.011) and lower antidepressant doses (P < 0.0001) as a consequence of a faster decrease (week 2) in depressive symptoms (P = 0.028). However, by controlling for early improvement, dropout subjects were associated with a smaller probability of antidepressant response (odds ratio = 0.16▪.83). A decrease of at least 30% in Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale on day 14 predicted subsequent dropout with high specificity (81.9%▪1.0%) but lower sensitivity (19.6%▪2.8%) for clinical use. Patients who have been depressed for a longer period and show an initial improvement of symptoms after changing their antidepressant may be at increased risk for drop out. Further studies are necessary to ascertain the usefulness of these characteristics for predicting attrition.

Efficacy of escitalopram monotherapy in the treatment of major depressive disorder: A pooled analysis of 4 Chinese clinical trials

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of escitalopram monotherapy in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) on the basis of pooled data analysis of 4 Chinese clinical trials.A total of 649 outpatients with MDD score of ≥18 at the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD17) were included across 4 eligible studies. Patients were treated with 10 mg/day escitalopram for 2 weeks, and then 20 mg/day escitalopram was administered if the clinical response was poor.The change in total HAMD17 score was significantly greater in moderate MDD group than in other subgroups (P < .001), but the proportion of responders and remission rate in moderate MDD group were markedly lower than in mild MDD group. As compared to patients with concomitant anxiety, anxiety free patients showed significant improvement in total HAMD17 score at days 14 and 28 (P < .05). However, there was no significant difference in the change of total HAMD17 score at day 7 and the end of study. According to clinical global impression (CGI) score, the total response rate (very much improved and much improved) was 86.7%. There were 479 adverse events (AEs), but serious AEs were not observed. A total of 3.39% (22/649) of patients withdrew from these studies due to AEs. The most common (incidence ≥2.0%) AEs were nausea, dry mouth, somnolence, dizziness, fatigue, dyspepsia, liver dysfunction, and loss of appetite.Escitalopram monotherapy is effective and safe in the treatment of MDD in Chinese patients, and therapeutic efficacy is dependent on the severity of MDD. Further study is needed to identify better predictors of therapeutic responses.

What to expect from a third step in treatment resistant depression: A prospective open study on escitalopram

OBJECTIVES

Only few studies investigated treatment strategies for treatment resistant depression (TRD). The objective of this multicentre study was to evaluate TRD patients who did not respond to at least two antidepressants.

METHODS

A total of 417 patients, who failed to respond to a previous retrospectively assessed antidepressant (AD1), were firstly included in a 6-week venlafaxine treatment (AD2); secondly, those who failed to respond were treated for further 6 weeks with escitalopram (AD3).

RESULTS

Out of 417 patients who had failed to respond to previous treatment (AD1), 334 completed treatment with venlafaxine to prospectively define TRD. In the intent to treat (ITT) population in the first phase of the trial (AD2), responders to venlafaxine were 151 (36.21%) out of which remitters were 83 (19.90%). After phase one, 170 non-responders, defined as TRD, were included in the second phase and 157 completed the course. Of the 170 ITT entering the second phase (AD3), responders to escitalopram were 71 (41.76%) out of which remitters were 39 (22.94%). After the third treatment, patients showed a dropout rate of 7.65% and a rate of presence of at least one serious adverse event of 19.18%.

CONCLUSIONS

Relevant rates of response and remission may be observed after a third line treatment in patients resistant to two previous treatments. A relevant limitation of this study was represented by the design: naturalistic, non-randomized, open-label, without a control sample and with unblinded raters.

The prevalence, measurement, and treatment of the cognitive dimension/domain in major depressive disorder

Insufficient outcomes amongst adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) provide the impetus to identify and refine therapeutic targets that are most critical to outcome from patient, provider, and societal perspectives. Towards this aim, a pivotal shift towards the transnosological domain, cognition, is occurring in the study of MDD and other brain disorders. This paper aims to provide a framework for conceptualizing and prioritizing cognitive function amongst adults with MDD with a particular view to provide a conceptual framework for research and clinical priorities. We also summarize extant data pertaining to psychotropic effects, notably antidepressants, on the cognitive dimension/domain. This narrative review was based on articles identified through a PubMed/MEDLINE search of all English-language articles published between January 1966 and October 2014. The search words were major depressive disorder, depression, unipolar depression, cognition, cognitive dysfunction, cognitive deficit, and cognitive function. The search was supplemented with a manual review of relevant references. The selection of articles for inclusion in this review was based on overall methodological quality as well as on their pertinence to informing the framework described herein. Cognitive dysfunction in MDD is a discrete domain subserved by discrete yet overlapping substrates. There is a need to provide a glossary of terms commonly employed in the cognition literature for consensus as to the appropriate screening, measurement, and monitoring tools. The guiding principle of measurement-based care should include systematic assessment and measurement of cognition in subpopulations with MDD, as a tactic to improve outcome. Relatively few treatment strategies have demonstrated efficacy specifically for the cognitive domain in MDD. The antidepressant vortioxetine has replicated evidence of specific pro-cognitive effects in adults with MDD across multiple subdomains of cognitive function. Vortioxetine is a novel antidepressant that is hypothesized to act through a combination of direct effects on receptor activity and serotonin receptor inhibition, as well as other systems. Pro-cognitive effects for other US FDA-approved agents are suggested, but pseudospecificity has not been excluded as a possible explanation of their beneficial effects on cognitive function. A disparate assortment of other agents are currently under investigation for possible benefit in mitigating cognitive deficits and improving cognitive performance (e.g., intranasal insulin, erythropoietin, anti-inflammatory agents). Non-pharmacological approaches including, but not limited to, cognitive remediation (CR), aerobic exercise, and neuromodulation are promising.

Health resource use and costs of vilazodone and other selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors in treating major depressive disorder

OBJECTIVE

Selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are widely prescribed antidepressants. This claims database study compared healthcare resource use and costs among patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) treated with vilazodone vs other SSRIs.

METHODS

Adults with an MDD diagnosis and ≥ 1 prescription fill for vilazodone, citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, or sertraline were identified from administrative claims data (2010-2012). Patients who concomitantly used adjunctive medication, either a second-generation antidepressant or antipsychotic, were excluded. All-cause and MDD-related healthcare resource use and costs (in 2012 USD) were compared between patients treated with vilazodone vs other SSRIs over a 6-month follow-up period using unadjusted and multivariable analyses.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 49 861 patients (mean age = 44.0 years; 70% female). Compared with the vilazodone cohort (n = 3527), patients in the citalopram (n = 12 187), escitalopram (n = 8275), fluoxetine (n = 10 142), paroxetine (n = 3146), and sertraline (n = 12 584) cohorts had significantly more all-cause inpatient hospital visits, longer hospital stays and more frequent emergency department visits, following the index date, after adjusting for baseline characteristics. All-cause medical service costs (inpatient + outpatient + emergency department visits) were significantly higher across all other SSRI cohorts vs vilazodone by $758-$1165 (p < 0.05). Similarly, all-cause total costs, were significantly or numerically (non-significantly) higher across all SSRI cohorts vs vilazodone by $351-$780.

LIMITATIONS

The was no clinical measurement of disease severity, partial coverage of the Medicare-eligible population, and short follow-up.

CONCLUSION

MDD treatment with vilazodone was associated with significantly lower rates of inpatient and emergency services, and with significantly lower all-cause medical service costs and numerically (non-significantly) lower total costs to payers than with the other SSRIs included in this study.

A comparative review of escitalopram, paroxetine, and sertraline: Are they all alike?

It is known that newer antidepressants, such as the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), provide advantages in tolerability over antidepressants such as the tricyclics. However, even within the SSRI class, differences in efficacy or tolerability exist between the individual drugs. Among the three most widely prescribed SSRIs are paroxetine, sertraline, and escitalopram. Escitalopram is commonly referred to as an SSRI, but also has well-documented allosteric properties, and thus can be further classed as an allosteric serotonin reuptake inhibitor. All three antidepressants are efficacious compared with placebo, but there is evidence that escitalopram is more effective than a range of other antidepressants. There are no direct data to regard either paroxetine or sertraline as a superior antidepressant. Escitalopram is superior compared with paroxetine, which has a less favorable tolerability profile. Paroxetine is associated with cholinergic muscarinic antagonism and potent inhibition of CYP2D6, and sertraline has moderate drug interaction issues in comparison with escitalopram. Overall, as an allosteric serotonin reuptake inhibitor that is somewhat different from classical SSRIs, escitalopram is the first choice judged by combined efficacy and tolerability, and nonclinical data have offered possible mechanisms through which escitalopram could be more efficacious, based on its interaction with orthosteric and allosteric binding sites at the serotonin transporter.

Does adding noradrenaline reuptake inhibition to selective serotonin reuptake inhibition improve efficacy in patients with depression? A systematic review of meta-analyses and large randomised pragmatic trials

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are recommended as first-line pharmacological treatment for depression and are the most commonly prescribed class of antidepressants. However, there is substantial evidence that noradrenaline has a role in the pathogenesis and treatment of depression. This review aims to examine the evidence of including noradrenaline reuptake inhibition with serotonin reuptake inhibition with respect to increasing efficacy in the treatment of depression. Evidence from meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and randomised pragmatic trials was found in support of greater efficacy of the serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), venlafaxine and duloxetine, in moderate to severe depression compared to SSRIs but no evidence was found for superiority of milnacipran. There is sufficient current evidence that demonstrates an increase in efficacy, when noradrenaline reuptake is added to serotonin (5-HT) reuptake, to suggest that patients with severe depression or those who have failed to reach remission with a SSRI may benefit from treatment with a SNRI. However, as these conclusions are drawn from the evidence derived from meta-analyses and pragmatic trials, large adequately powered RCTs using optimal dosing regimens and clinically relevant outcome measures in severe depression and SSRI treatment failures are still required to confirm these findings.

Duloxetine versus other anti-depressive agents for depression

BACKGROUND

Although pharmacological and psychological interventions are both effective for major depression, in primary and secondary care settings antidepressant drugs remain the mainstay of treatment. Amongst antidepressants many different agents are available. Duloxetine hydrochloride is a dual reuptake inhibitor of serotonin and norepinephrine and has been licensed by the Food and Drug Administration in the US for major depressive disorder (MDD), generalised anxiety disorder, diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia and chronic musculoskeletal pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence for the efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of duloxetine in comparison with all other antidepressant agents in the acute-phase treatment of major depression.

SEARCH METHODS

MEDLINE (1966 to 2012), EMBASE (1974 to 2012), the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to March 2012. No language restriction was applied. Reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews were hand-searched. Pharmaceutical company marketing duloxetine and experts in this field were contacted for supplemental data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials allocating patients with major depression to duloxetine versus any other antidepressive agent.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and a double-entry procedure was employed. Information extracted included study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details and outcome measures in terms of efficacy, acceptability and tolerability.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 16 randomised controlled trials (overall 5735 participants) were included in this systematic review. Of these, three trials were unpublished. We found 11 studies (overall 3304 participants) comparing duloxetine with one selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) (six studies versus paroxetine, three studies versus escitalopram and two versus fluoxetine), four studies (overall 1978 participants) comparing duloxetine with a newer antidepressants (three with venlafaxine and one with desvenlafaxine, respectively) and one study (overall 453 participants) comparing duloxetine with an antipsychotic drug which is also used as an antidepressive agent, quetiapine. No studies were found comparing duloxetine with tricyclic antidepressants. The pooled confidence intervals were rather wide and there were no statistically significant differences in efficacy when comparing duloxetine with other antidepressants. However, when compared with escitalopram or venlafaxine, there was a higher rate of drop out due to any cause in the patients randomised to duloxetine (odds ratio (OR) 1.62; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 2.62 and OR 1.56; 95% CI 1.14 to 2.15, respectively). There was also some weak evidence suggesting that patients taking duloxetine experienced more adverse events than paroxetine (OR 1.24; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.55).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Duloxetine did not seem to provide a significant advantage in efficacy over other antidepressive agents for the acute-phase treatment of major depression. No differences in terms of efficacy were found, even though duloxetine was worse than some SSRIs (most of all, escitalopram) and newer antidepressants (like venlafaxine) in terms of acceptability and tolerability. Unfortunately, we only found evidence comparing duloxetine with a handful of other active antidepressive agents and only a few trials per comparison were found (in some cases we retrieved just one trial). This limited the power of the review to detect moderate, but clinically meaningful differences between the drugs. As many statistical tests have been used in the review, the findings from this review are better thought of as hypothesis forming rather than hypothesis testing and it would be very comforting to see the conclusions replicated in future trials. Most of included studies were sponsored by the drug industry manufacturing duloxetine. As for all other new investigational compounds, the potential for overestimation of treatment effect due to sponsorship bias should be borne in mind. In the present review no trials reported economic outcomes. Given that several SSRIs and the great majority of antidepressants are now available as generic formulation (only escitalopram, desvenlafaxine and duloxetine are still on patent), more comprehensive economic estimates of antidepressant treatment effect should be considered to better inform healthcare policy.

Cognitive and behavioral predictors of light therapy use

OBJECTIVE

Although light therapy is effective in the treatment of seasonal affective disorder (SAD) and other mood disorders, only 53-79% of individuals with SAD meet remission criteria after light therapy. Perhaps more importantly, only 12-41% of individuals with SAD continue to use the treatment even after a previous winter of successful treatment.

METHOD

Participants completed surveys regarding (1) social, cognitive, and behavioral variables used to evaluate treatment adherence for other health-related issues, expectations and credibility of light therapy, (2) a depression symptoms scale, and (3) self-reported light therapy use.

RESULTS

Individuals age 18 or older responded (n = 40), all reporting having been diagnosed with a mood disorder for which light therapy is indicated. Social support and self-efficacy scores were predictive of light therapy use (p's<.05).

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest that testing social support and self-efficacy in a diagnosed patient population may identify factors related to the decision to use light therapy. Treatments that impact social support and self-efficacy may improve treatment response to light therapy in SAD.

Escitalopram, an antidepressant with an allosteric effect at the serotonin transporter--a review of current understanding of its mechanism of action

RATIONALE

Escitalopram is a widely used antidepressant for the treatment of patients with major depression. It is the pure S-enantiomer of racemic citalopram. Several clinical trials and meta-analyses indicate that escitalopram is quantitatively more efficacious than many other antidepressants with a faster onset of action.

OBJECTIVE

This paper reviews current knowledge about the mechanism of action of escitalopram.

RESULTS

The primary target for escitalopram is the serotonin transporter (SERT), which is responsible for serotonin (or 5-hydroxytryptamine [5-HT]) reuptake at the terminals and cell bodies of serotonergic neurons. Escitalopram and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors bind with high affinity to the 5-HT binding site (orthosteric site) on the transporter. This leads to antidepressant effects by increasing extracellular 5-HT levels which enhance 5-HT neurotransmission. SERT also has one or more allosteric sites, binding to which modulates activity at the orthosteric binding site but does not directly affect 5-HT reuptake by the transporter. In vitro studies have shown that through allosteric binding, escitalopram decreases its own dissociation rate from the orthosteric site on the SERT. R-citalopram, the nontherapeutic enantiomer in citalopram, is also an allosteric modulator of SERT but can inhibit the actions of escitalopram by interfering negatively with its binding. Both nonclinical studies and some clinical investigations have demonstrated the cellular, neurochemical, neuroadaptive, and neuroplastic changes induced by escitalopram with acute and chronic administration.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings from binding, neurochemical, and neurophysiological studies may provide a mechanistic rationale for the clinical difference observed with escitalopram compared to other antidepressant therapies.

Duloxetine in the acute and continuation treatment of major depressive disorder

Duloxetine is a serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor with indications for use in the short term, continuation and maintenance treatment of major depression. Although clinicians currently have access to a range of medications for the treatment of depression, a significant number of patients fail to respond or remit from their illness despite adequate trials of treatment with multiple agents. A developing concept is that antidepressant strategies that combine multiple mechanisms of action may have advantages over agents with single mechanisms (i.e., selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors). As a dual-acting agent, duloxetine offers the promise of advantages in terms of efficacy over selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors while retaining a favorable safety and tolerability profile in comparison to older agents. Likewise, duloxetine is of interest in the treatment of certain conditions commonly seen in conjunction with major depression, particularly anxiety and pain, both of which may respond more favorably to agents that act on both serotonin and noradrenaline neurotransmitter systems.

Comparative efficacy of escitalopram in the treatment of major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND

Escitalopram is an allosteric selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) with some indication of superior efficacy in the treatment of major depressive disorder. In this systematic review, we critically evaluate the evidence for comparative efficacy and tolerability of escitalopram, focusing on pooled and meta-analysis studies.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted for escitalopram studies that quantitatively synthesized data from comparative randomized controlled trials in MDD. Studies were excluded if they did not focus on efficacy, involved primarily subgroups of patients, or synthesized data included in subsequent studies. Outcomes extracted from the included studies were weighted mean difference or standard mean difference, response and remission rates, and withdrawal rate owing to adverse events.

RESULTS

The search initially identified 24 eligible studies, of which 12 (six pooled analysis and six meta-analysis studies) met the criteria for review. The pooled and meta-analysis studies with citalopram showed significant but modest differences in favor of escitalopram, with weighted mean differences ranging from 1.13 to 1.73 points on the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale, response rate differences of 7.0%-8.3%, and remission rate differences of 5.1%-17.6%. Pooled analysis studies showed efficacy differences compared with duloxetine and with serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors combined, but meta-analysis studies did not. The effect sizes of the efficacy differences increased in the severely depressed patient subgroups.

CONCLUSION

Based on pooled and meta-analysis studies, escitalopram demonstrates superior efficacy compared with citalopram and with SSRIs combined. Escitalopram shows similar efficacy to serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors but the number of trials in these comparisons is limited. Efficacy differences are modest but clinically relevant, especially in more severely depressed patients.