Escitalopram in the treatment of major depressive disorder: clinical efficacy, tolerability and cost-effectiveness vs. venlafaxine extended-release formulation

Dissecting the Relationship Between Neuropsychiatric and Neurodegenerative Disorders

Neurodegenerative diseases (NDDs) and neuropsychiatric disorders (NPDs) are two common causes of death in elderly people, which includes progressive neuronal cell death and behavioral changes. NDDs include Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, multiple sclerosis, and motor neuron disease, characterized by cognitive defects and memory impairment, whereas NPDs include depression, seizures, migraine headaches, eating disorders, addictions, palsies, major depressive disorders, anxiety, and schizophrenia, characterized by behavioral changes. Mounting evidence demonstrated that NDDs and NPDs share an overlapping mechanism, which includes post-translational modifications, the microbiota-gut-brain axis, and signaling events. Mounting evidence demonstrated that various drug molecules, namely, natural compounds, repurposed drugs, multitarget directed ligands, and RNAs, have been potentially implemented as therapeutic agents against NDDs and NPDs. Herein, we highlighted the overlapping mechanism, the role of anxiety/stress-releasing factors, cytosol-to-nucleus signaling, and the microbiota-gut-brain axis in the pathophysiology of NDDs and NPDs. We summarize the therapeutic application of natural compounds, repurposed drugs, and multitarget-directed ligands as therapeutic agents. Lastly, we briefly described the application of RNA interferences as therapeutic agents in the pathogenesis of NDDs and NPDs. Neurodegenerative diseases and neuropsychiatric diseases both share a common signaling molecule and molecular phenomenon, namely, pro-inflammatory cytokines, γCaMKII and MAPK/ERK, chemokine receptors, BBB permeability, and the gut-microbiota-brain axis. Studies have demonstrated that any alterations in the signaling mentioned above molecules and molecular phenomena lead to the pathophysiology of neurodegenerative diseases, namely, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and neuropsychiatric disorders, such as bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, depression, anxiety, autism spectrum disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder.

[Effectiveness, safety and adherence to therapy with Elicea Q-Tab in real clinical practice]

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of escitalopram in the form of oral dispersible tablets (Elicea Q-Tab) in real-life clinical practice in patients with depressive and anxiety disorders.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study included 1.892 outpatient patients, 1.860 of whom completed participation in accordance with the protocol and entered the statistical analysis. Most patients were diagnosed with depressive and anxiety disorders of varying severity, as a rule, these diagnoses were established for the first time. The drug was most often prescribed at a dosage of 10 mg/day. The patients were monitored for 90 days and at each of the 3 visits, scales were used to assess the clinical condition (CGI-S and CGI-I), scales «Interaction with people, maintaining relationships (social functioning)» and «Availability of work, task completion, school attendance (professional functioning)», scales satisfaction with the convenience of admission/appointment and the effectiveness of treatment, various indicators of quality of life (autonomy, social and professional functioning, hobbies and hobbies), as well as the severity of cognitive disorders were measured.

RESULTS

Patients treated with escitalopram in the form of oral tablets dispersible in the oral cavity (Elicea Q-Tab) showed an improvement in their clinical condition (a decrease in CGI-S scores from 3.65 at visit 1 to 2.63 by visit 3, by 28%; a decrease in CGI-I scores from 2.39 at visit 1 to 1.57 to visit 3, by 34%), as well as improving the quality of life, social (from 2.74 points on 1 visit to 4.32 on 2 visits, by 58%) and professional functioning (from 2.81 on 1 visit to 4.35 on 2 visits, by 55%), the level of concentration (from 3.28 points on 1 visit up to 4.5 on 3 visits, by 37%). Doctors and patients noted high satisfaction with the effectiveness and convenience of using the drug, the frequency of adverse events was low.

CONCLUSION

The study showed that escitalopram in the form of oral tablets dispersible in the oral cavity (Elicea Q-Tab) is an efficient and safe treatment for depressive and anxiety disorders in real-world clinical settings. Patients and physicians have evaluated the drug positively and it can be considered as an effective agent in psychiatric practice.

A Review of Clinical Studies Assessing the Therapeutic Efficacy of Escitalopram: A Step Towards Development

BACKGROUND

Major depression is a debilitating, sometimes fatal disorder, deteriorating the quality of life and well-being. Escitalopram showed highly selective and dose-dependent inhibitory activity on human serotonin transport. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are the first-line drugs to manage major depressive disorder (MDD).

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to explore the therapeutic potential of escitalopram, a clinically approved drug to manage MDD and panic disorders.

METHODS

It emphasizes comparative and clinical trial studies with several pharmacological targets reviewed from the data available on PubMed, Science Direct, Clinicaltrails.gov, and from many reputed foundations.

RESULTS

To highlight the clinical efficacy, safety, recent development, and stable formulation of escitalopram with an increased bioavailability profile. Evidence-based on the available clinical and pharmacoeconomic data, escitalopram represents an effective first-line treatment option for MDD patients.

CONCLUSION

The present review highlights the placebo-controlled clinical studies and the recent development that can be helpful for further research perspectives.

Abuse of Prescription Drugs in the Context of Novel Psychoactive Substances (NPS): A Systematic Review

Recently, a range of prescription and over-the-counter drugs have been reportedly used as Novel Psychoactive Substances (NPS), due to their potential for abuse resulting from their high dosage/idiosyncratic methods of self-administration. This paper provides a systematic review of the topic, focusing on a range of medications which have emerged as being used recreationally, either on their own or in combination with NPS. Among gabapentinoids, pregabalin may present with higher addictive liability levels than gabapentin, with pregabalin being mostly identified in the context of opioid, polydrug intake. For antidepressants, their dopaminergic, stimulant-like, bupropion activities may explain their recreational value and diversion from the therapeutic intended use. In some vulnerable clients, a high dosage of venlafaxine (‘baby ecstasy’) is ingested for recreational purposes, whilst the occurrence of a clinically-relevant withdrawal syndrome may be a significant issue for all venlafaxine-treated patients. Considering second generation antipsychotics, olanzapine appears to be ingested at very large dosages as an ‘ideal trip terminator’, whilst the immediate-release quetiapine formulation may possess proper abuse liability levels. Within the image- and performance- enhancing drugs (IPEDs) group, the beta-2 agonist clenbuterol (‘size zero pill’) is reported to be self-administered for aggressive slimming purposes. Finally, high/very high dosage ingestion of the antidiarrhoeal loperamide has shown recent increasing levels of popularity due to its central recreational, anti-withdrawal, opiatergic effects. The emerging abuse of prescription drugs within the context of a rapidly modifying drug scenario represents a challenge for psychiatry, public health and drug-control policies.

Is There a Potential of Misuse for Venlafaxine and Bupropion?

Objective: Traditionally, studies on the non-medical use of pharmaceutical products have focused on controlled substances; e.g., opiates/opioids; and benzodiazepines. Although both bupropion and venlafaxine have been reported as being misused, only anecdotal reports have been made available so far. Hence, the European Monitoring Agency (EMA) Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs), misuse/abuse/dependence and withdrawal, venlafaxine- and bupropion-related, database was here analyzed.

Methods: All EMA spontaneous reports relating to venlafaxine (2005–2016) and bupropion (2003–2016) notifications were here analyzed, to provide a descriptive analysis by source, gender, age, and type of report. The UK-based, 2000–2016, Yellow Card Scheme pharmacovigilance database, bupropion and venlafaxine withdrawal reports were compared as well with those pertaining to fluoxetine and paroxetine.

Results: Out of 20,720 (bupropion) and 47,516 (venlafaxine) total number of ADRs, some 2,232 (10.8%), and 4,071 (8.5%) misuse/abuse/dependence ADRs were respectively associated with bupropion and venlafaxine. Conversely, bupropion withdrawal-related ADRs were here reported in 299/20,720 (1.44%) cases and in 914/47,516 (1.92%) cases for venlafaxine. Overall, all bupropion and venlafaxine misuse-/abuse-/dependence- and withdrawal-ADRs were related to a respective number of 264 and 447 patients. According to the Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) computation, in comparison with venlafaxine bupropion resulted to be more frequently misused/abused (PRR: 1.50), but less frequently associated with both dependence (PRR: 0.92) and withdrawal (PRR: 0.77) issues. Yellow Card Scheme data suggested that paroxetine and venlafaxine, in comparison with fluoxetine and bupropion, were associated with higher number of withdrawal-related reports.

Conclusions: The dopaminergic, stimulant-like, bupropion activities may be associated with its possible recreational value. Present data may confirm that the occurrence of a withdrawal syndrome may be a significant issue for venlafaxine-treated patients.

Catecholamine pathway polymorphisms and antidepressant response

INTRODUCTION

Genes that regulate the catecholamine metabolism pathways are potential targets for research in the antidepressant treatment response. This study was intended to determine whether antidepressant responses to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are associated with genetic polymorphisms of the tyrosine or tryptophan gene in Chinese major depressive disorder (MDD) patients.

METHODS

A total of 290 MDD patients were recruited and received a 6-week SSRIs randomized double-blinded treatment. Allele, genotype, and haplotype frequencies were compared between responders and nonresponders in catecholamine genes.

RESULTS

Genotype frequency of the rs1800544 polymorphism in the DRD4 gene was significantly different between responders and nonresponders after false discovery rate correction (P = 0.042). The frequency of the DRD4 rs1800544 CG genotype was significantly higher (P = 0.003) in responders (51.4%) than in nonresponders (35.8%), and patients with the CG genotype showed an 81.7% response rate. In comparison, the response rates were 73.9% and 52.2% in patients with the GG genotype and the CC genotype, respectively. The frequencies of the DRD4 rs1800544 CC and GG genotypes were significantly lower (P = 0.003) in responders (7.7%, 40.9%) than in the nonresponders (19.4%, 44.8%). No significant difference was found between two groups either in genotype or allele frequencies of single nucleotide polymorphisms in the TPH, SLC6A2, SLC6A3, or DRD2 genes. No significant difference was found between two groups in TPH, SLC6A2, SLC6A3, DRD2, orDRD4 gene haplotypes.

DISCUSSION

Polymorphisms of the DRD4 gene appear to be associated with SSRI treatment response in Chinese MDD patients.

Does escitalopram reduce neurotoxicity in major depression?

A pro-inflammatory state and a dysregulation in the tryptophan/kynurenine pathway have been documented in depression. This study examined whether treatment with the SSRI, escitalopram (ESC), could suppress inflammation and favorably shift metabolites of the kynurenine pathway in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) within the utilized treatment period. Twenty seven healthy control subjects were included for comparison. Thirty patients were enrolled after completing baseline assessments. They received a 12-week ESC monotherapy. Twenty subjects were completers. Clinical assessments were carried out at each visit using the HAM-D, HAM-A, CGI and BDI rating scales. Blood samples were collected at each assessment and stored until analyzed. Cytokines were analyzed with Randox multiplex assay and tryptophan and kynurenine metabolites were analyzed using HPLC/GCMS. Baseline plasma concentrations of hsCRP, TNFα, IL6 and MCP-1 were significantly higher in patients compared to healthy controls. IL10 trended toward an increase. Baseline plasma IL1β correlated significantly with IL1α, and IL4. Patients showed significant improvement in all outcome measures with a high remission rate. Significant correlations were obtained between specific symptoms and certain biomarkers at baseline but these correlations must be viewed as very preliminary. During ESC treatment concentrations of inflammatory biomarkers did not change except for TNFα that trended lower. Metabolites and ratios of the tryptophan/kynurenine pathway showed reductions of the neurotoxic metabolites, 3-hydroxykynurenine and quinolinic acid, 3-hydroxykynurenine/kynurenine, quinolinic acid/tryptophan, kynurenic acid/quinolinic acid and quinolinic acid/3-hydroxykynurenine. The results indicate that ESC may exert its antidepressant effect in part through inhibition of synthesis of certain neurotoxic kynurenine metabolites and possibly also through reduction of the inflammatory response, although there was no concordance in the time course of changes between antidepressant efficacy and reversal of the pro-inflammatory status.

[Treatment of endogenous depression with venflaxine: clinical action, tolerability and personalized treatment options]

OBJECTIVE

To specify clinical action of venflaxine during the course treatment of patients with different depressive states of endogenous nature.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An open naturalistic study of 32 patients with different nosological forms of endogenous depression (manic-depressive psychosis, cyclothymia, schizophrenia) was carried out. Duration of the course treatment with venflaxine (velaxin) administered in daily dose of 37,5-300 mg was 56 days. Clinical and psychometric methods were used.

RESULTS

Venflaxine was a highly effective antidepressant. In the end of treatment, a "good" therapeutic effect with >50% reduction in total scores on the Hamilton scale (HAMD-D) was achieved in 84,4% of patients, a "marked" effect up to complete recovery with >80% reduction in HAMD-D scores was in 78,1% of cases.

CONCLUSION

Due to its clinical characteristics, venflaxine may be regarded as a multiprofile antidepressant with the distinct balanced action. In the spectrum of its antidepressant activity, a thymoleptic effect is most pronounced compared to anxiolytic and stimulating effects. This provides a high efficacy of the drug in different types of endogenous depression (anxiety, apatho-adynamic and, in particular, melancholic).

ABCB6, ABCB1 and ABCG1 genetic polymorphisms and antidepressant response of SSRIs in Chinese depressive patients

AIM

Major depressive disorder is a common psychiatric disorder with worldwide prevalence. The most widely prescribed antidepressants are selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). ATP-binding cassette proteins are responsible for the membrane transport of various molecules including antidepressive drugs. We investigated whether SNPs in ABCB6, ABCB1 and ABCG1 were associated with the treatment response of SSRIs.

MATERIALS & METHODS

A pharmacogenetic study genotyping nine SNPs was conducted in 290 major depressive disorder patients in the Chinese Han population. Allele and genotype frequencies were compared between responders and nonresponders.

RESULTS

The allele frequencies of rs28401781 and rs4148739 in ABCB1 showed significant difference between responders and nonresponders before correction (p = 0.0297 and p = 0.0359, respectively). No significant associations were detected for the ABCB6 or ABCG1 gene.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that ABCB1 polymorphisms might be associated with SSRIs treatment response in the Chinese Han population.

The estimation of utility weights in cost-utility analysis for mental disorders: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review approaches and instruments used to derive utility weights in cost-utility analyses (CUAs) within the field of mental disorders and to identify factors that may have influenced the choice of the approach.

METHODS

We searched the databases DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects), NHS EED (National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database), HTA (Health Technology Assessment), and PubMed for CUAs. Studies were included if they were full economic evaluations and reported quality-adjusted life-years as the health outcome. Study characteristics and instruments used to estimate utility weights were described and a logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with the choice of either the direct (e.g. standard gamble) or the preference-based measure (PBM) approach (e.g. EQ-5D).

RESULTS

We identified 227 CUAs with a maximum in 2009, 2010, and 2012. Most CUAs were conducted in depression, dementia, or psychosis, and came from the US or the UK, with the EQ-5D being the most frequently used instrument. The application of the direct approach was significantly associated with depression, psychosis, and model-based studies. The PBM approach was more likely to be used in recent studies, dementia, Europe, and empirical studies. Utility weights used in model-based studies were derived from only a small number of studies.

LIMITATIONS

We only searched four databases and did not evaluate the quality of the included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Direct instruments and PBMs are used to elicit utility weights in CUAs with different frequencies regarding study type, mental disorder, and country.

Challenging sequential approach to treatment resistant depression: cost-utility analysis based on the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR(⁎)D) trial

In major depression, when a first antidepressant does not cause remission of symptoms (60%-75%), there are several options for continuing treatment in the next step. This study is a cost-utility analysis (CUA) of different second-line approaches. In a simulated trial outpatients with MDD were treated with citalopram for 13 weeks (level 1), then based on two alternative algorithms implemented from the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR(*)D) study. Algorithm A: citalopram was continued until study endpoint (week 26). Algorithm B: patients who remitted during level 1 continued citalopram. Those who did not remit could opt for switching to another antidepressant (venlafaxine; sertraline) (b1) or adding bupropion to citalopram treatment (augmentation; b2). Algorithm B increased remission rate by 10.6% over Algorithm A (number needed to treat: 9.9; sensitivity range: 9.1-12.5). As a comparison, differences between active antidepressants and placebo are associated with NNT values of 6 to 8. In CUA Algorithm B was dominant with an ICER of $11,813 (sensitivity range=$1783 - $21,784), which is <1GDP per capita cost-effectiveness threshold (USA=$47,193). Among Algorithm B options, switching (b1) dominated Algorithm A with a smaller number of responders than augmentation approach (b2) (NNT 11 vs. 7.7), whereas ICER values were similar (b1: $14,738; b2: $15,458). However we cannot exclude a bias in selecting second treatment. This cost-utility analysis shows (in line with current guidelines) a benefit in modifying antidepressant treatment if response to first-line agent does not occur within 3 months, but not a clear-cut evidence in terms of NNT.

Efficacy, effectiveness and efficiency of escitalopram in the treatment of major depressive and anxiety disorders

In addition to the large personal challenge that depression and anxiety present, these disorders are associated with a substantial burden of disability and lost productivity, and are responsible for considerable strain on healthcare resources and on society. Escitalopram is recommended as first-line therapy for the treatment of major depressive disorder and severe depression, and is indicated in anxiety disorders. Compared with other antidepressants, escitalopram has equal or superior efficacy, as proven in clinical trial settings, equal or superior real-life effectiveness, established in both clinical and observational studies, and a better tolerability profile. While drug acquisition costs are higher for escitalopram than for generic drugs such as fluoxetine and citalopram, numerous prospective and modeled economic analyses show that associated direct and indirect costs of treatment are lower with escitalopram than with citalopram, fluoxetine, sertraline and venlafaxine. Thus, escitalopram appears to be more economically efficient than many antidepressants currently available. Escitalopram has a prominent role in the treatment of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders, and may also prove to be important in the treatment of mixed depressive anxiety disorder.

Clinical features and efficacy of escitalopram treatment for geriatric depression

This study investigated the psychological characteristics and clinical features of 55 patients with geriatric depression, and evaluated the efficacy and safety of escitalopram in the treatment of geriatric depression, in a randomized controlled trial. Fifty-five patients with geriatric depression were randomly assigned to receive 8 weeks of escitalopram 10 mg, daily, orally (n = 29) or placebo (n = 26). At baseline, these patients had significantly higher neuroticism and psychoticism scores on the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire - Adult scale than Chinese population norms. General Severity Index scores and the mean values of the nine subscales of the Symptom Checklist-90 - Revised scale were also significantly higher in these patients than in Chinese population norms. The response rate to escitalopram after 8 weeks' treatment was 74.1% (20/27 patients). Adverse reactions included nausea, dry mouth and dizziness. In conclusion, depressed geriatric patients were found to have abnormal personality traits, and escitalopram was efficacious and had a good safety profile in the treatment of geriatric depression.

Should pharmacogenetics be incorporated in major depression treatment? Economic evaluation in high- and middle-income European countries

The serotonin transporter 5-HTTLPR polymorphism moderates response to SSRIs and side-effect burden. The aim of this study is to quantify the cost-utility of incorporating 5-HTTLPR genotyping in drug treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). We previously reported a theoretical model to simulate antidepressant treatment with citalopram or bupropion for 12 weeks. The drugs were alternatively selected according to an 'as usual' algorithm or based on response and tolerability predicted by 5-HTTLPR profile. Here we apply this model to conduct a cost-utility analysis in three European regions with high GDP (Euro A), middle GDP (Euro B) and middle-high GDP (Euro C). In addition we test a verification scenario in which citalopram+bupropion augmentation is administered to individuals with the least favorable 5-HTTLPR genotype. Treatment outcomes are remission and Quality Adjusted-Life Weeks (QALW). Cost data (international $, year 2009) are retrieved from the World Health Organization (WHO) and national official sources. In base-case scenario incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) values are $1147 (Euro A), $1185 (Euro B) and $1178 (Euro C). From cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC), the probability of having an ICER value below WHO recommended cost-utility threshold (3 GDP per capita=$1926) is >90% in high-income countries (Euro A). In middle- income regions, these probabilities are <30% (Euro B) and <55% (Euro C) respectively. All estimates are robust against variations in treatment parameters, but if genetic test cost decreases to $100, pharmacogenetic approach becomes cost-effective in middle-income countries (Euro B). This simulation using data from 27 European states suggests that choosing antidepressant treatment from the results of 5-HTTLPR might be a cost-effective solution in high income countries. Its feasibility in middle income countries needs further research.

A model to incorporate genetic testing (5-HTTLPR) in pharmacological treatment of major depressive disorders

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the benefit of pharmacogenetics in antidepressant treatment.

METHODS

In a simulated trial 100,000 subjects in a current episode of major depressive disorder (MDD) received citalopram or bupropion based on the clinician's decision (algorithm A) or following indications from 5-HTTLPR genetic testing (algorithm B), which effect size of was estimated from a meta-analysis of pharmacogenetic trials. A and B were compared in a cost-utility analysis (12 weeks). Costs (international $, 2010) were drawn from official sources. Treatment effects were expressed as quality-adjusted life weeks (QALWs). Outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

Under base-case conditions, genetic test use was associated with increases in antidepressant response (0.062 QALWs) and tolerability (0.016 QALWs) but cost benefit was not acceptable (ICER = $2,890; $1,800-$4,091). However, when the joint effect on antidepressant response and tolerability was analyzed in two recurrent episodes, ICER dropped to $1,392 ($837-$1,982). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) showed a >80% probability that ICER value fell below the commonly accepted 3 times Gross Domestic Product (GDP) threshold (World Health Organization) and therefore suggesting cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

Notwithstanding some caveats (exclusion of gene-gene and gene-environment interactions; simple 5-HTTLPR architecture), this simulation is favourable to incorporate pharmacogenetic test in antidepressant treatment.

Escitalopram: a review of its use in the management of major depressive disorder in adults

Escitalopram (escitalopram oxalate; Cipralex, Lexapro), a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) indicated for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD), demonstrates a highly selective and potent, dose-dependent inhibition of the human serotonin transporter, inhibiting serotonin reuptake into presynaptic nerve terminals and thus increasing serotonergic activity in the CNS. With regard to primary endpoints (such as improved scores on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HAM-D]), escitalopram was generally more effective than placebo, at least as effective as citalopram, and generally at least as effective as other comparator drugs, including the SSRIs fluoxetine, paroxetine and sertraline, the serotonin-noradrenaline (norepinephrine) reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) venlafaxine extended release and duloxetine, and the aminoketone bupropion in adult patients with MDD in short-term, well designed trials. Moreover, it demonstrated a rapid onset of antidepressant action. Escitalopram was also found to be cost effective in several studies, dominating other SSRIs and venlafaxine extended release. Maintenance therapy is commonly required to prevent recurrence of depression. Long-term trials corroborated short-term results, with escitalopram demonstrating greater efficacy than placebo in relapse prevention. Additionally, escitalopram was at least as effective as citalopram, paroxetine and duloxetine in long-term comparative trials. Escitalopram has a predictable tolerability profile with generally mild to moderate and transient adverse events, and a low propensity for drug interactions. Sexual dysfunction with escitalopram treatment appeared to occur to a similar or lower extent to that with paroxetine (another SSRI), to a similar or greater extent to that with the SNRI duloxetine, and to a greater extent than that with the aminoketone bupropion. Thus, escitalopram is an effective and generally well tolerated treatment for moderate to severe MDD. Escitalopram, like other SSRIs, is an effective first-line option in the management of patients with MDD.

Escitalopram--translating molecular properties into clinical benefit: reviewing the evidence in major depression

The majority of currently marketed drugs contain a mixture of enantiomers; however, recent evidence suggests that individual enantiomers can have pharmacological properties that differ importantly from enantiomer mixtures. Escitalopram, the S-enantiomer of citalopram, displays markedly different pharmacological activity to the R-enantiomer. This review aims to evaluate whether these differences confer any significant clinical advantage for escitalopram over either citalopram or other frequently used antidepressants. Searches were conducted using PubMed and EMBASE (up to January 2009). Abstracts of the retrieved studies were reviewed independently by both authors for inclusion. Only those studies relating to depression or major depressive disorder were included. The search identified over 250 citations, of which 21 studies and 18 pooled or meta-analyses studies were deemed suitable for inclusion. These studies reveal that escitalopram has some efficacy advantage over citalopram and paroxetine, but no consistent advantage over other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Escitalopram has at least comparable efficacy to available serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, venlafaxine XR and duloxetine, and may offer some tolerability advantages over these agents. This review suggests that the mechanistic advantages of escitalopram over citalopram translate into clinical efficacy advantages. Escitalopram may have a favourable benefit-risk ratio compared with citalopram and possibly with several other antidepressant agents.

Desvenlafaxine in major depressive disorder: an evidence-based review of its place in therapy

INTRODUCTION

Desvenlafaxine, the active metabolite of venlafaxine, is a serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) recently approved for the treatment of major depressive disorder. It is one of only three medications in this class available in the United States.

AIMS

The objective of this article is to review the published evidence for the safety and efficacy of desvenlafaxine, and to compare it to other antidepressants to delineate its role in the treatment of depression.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

At the recommended dose of 50 mg per day the rate of response and remission was similar to other SNRIs, as was the adverse effect profile. The rate of discontinuation was no greater than placebo, and a discontinuation syndrome was not observed at this dose. Higher doses were not associated with greater efficacy, but they did lead to more side effects, and the use of a taper prior to discontinuation. The most common side effects reported were insomnia, somnolence, dizziness, and nausea. Some subjects experienced clinically significant blood pressure elevation.

PLACE IN THERAPY

Like duloxetine, desvenlafaxine inhibits the reuptake of both norepinephrine and serotonin at the starting dose. Dual reuptake inhibitors have been shown to have small but statistically significantly greater rates of response and remission compared to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and they have also shown early promise in the treatment of neuropathic pain. Desvenlafaxine may prove to be a valuable treatment option by expanding the limited number of available dual reuptake inhibitors.

Healthcare utilization and costs incurred by patients with major depression after being switched from escitalopram to another SSRI for non-medical reasons

OBJECTIVE

To compare healthcare utilization and costs for major depressive disorder (MDD) patients treated with escitalopram and who were switched to another SSRI for non-medical reasons versus those who did not switch.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients were identified in the Ingenix Impact Database (2003-2006). The analysis group included patients who remained on escitalopram for ≥ 90 days and switched to another SSRI within 45 days of end of supply days for non-medical reasons; the control group included matched individuals who did not switch within 45 days. Switching for medical reasons was defined as switching within 7 days after having a hospitalization, an emergency room (ER) visit, or a psychotherapy visit. Outcomes (all-cause and MDD-related) were analyzed over 3 months and included use of hospital, ER, outpatient visits and professional services, and healthcare costs. Outcomes were compared between the two groups using descriptive statistics and regression analyses controlling for differences in baseline characteristics. Costs were inflation adjusted to 2006 US dollars.

RESULTS

The study included 2,805 matched pairs. Compared to controls, switchers had higher rates of all-cause and MDD-related hospitalizations (relative risk [RR] = 1.4 and 2.0, respectively) and all-cause and MDD-related ER visits (RR = 1.2 and 1.6, respectively, all p ≤ 0.05). Results from multivariate analyses show that switchers had higher medical costs (+$138), drug costs (+$149) and total healthcare costs (+$322) compared to patients in the control group (all p < 0.0001).

LIMITATIONS

This study's limitations include its short observational period and definition of switching for non-medical reasons.

CONCLUSION

Patients who were switched to another SSRI for non-medical reasons after being stabilized on escitalopram used more resources and had higher healthcare costs within 3 months of switching than patients who did not switch.

Cost effectiveness of escitalopram versus SNRIs in second-step treatment of major depressive disorder in Sweden

OBJECTIVES

Escitalopram is the S-enantiomer of citalopram and is the most discriminating of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI). The aim of the current analysis was to assess the cost effectiveness of escitalopram versus the serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) duloxetine and generic venlafaxine as second-step treatment of major depressive disorder.

METHODS

The analysis was based on a decision analytic model. Effectiveness outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and remission rates; cost outcomes were direct medical costs, including impact of treating adverse events, and indirect costs associated with lost productivity. The analysis was performed from the societal perspective in Sweden over a 6-month timeframe.

RESULTS

Estimated remission rates showed an incremental effectiveness in favour of escitalopram of 16.4 percentage points compared with both SNRI comparators. The escitalopram strategy was associated with a 0.025 increase in QALYs. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the model is robust and that escitalopram remains a cost-effective option when considering future predicted price reductions of generic venlafaxine.

LIMITATIONS

The main limitation in this study was the lack of data available for second-step treatment. The remission rates, which are a key input to the model, were obtained from a relatively small sample of patients on second-step treatment and there are no published relapse rates for second-step treatment. The model also assumed that there was no difference in the adverse event (AE) rates between treatments after the first 8 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

This cost-effectiveness analysis indicates that, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000, escitalopram is the most cost-effective second-step treatment option for MDD in Sweden in over 85% cases compared with both venlafaxine and with duloxetine. Benefits for escitalopram included both increased effectiveness and reduced overall costs. The major contributing costs were those associated with productivity loss. The model was shown to have internal validity and robustness through the use of stochastic simulations and sensitivity analyses, which were conducted around the key efficacy parameters.

Cost effectiveness analysis of escitalopram compared to venlafaxine and fluvoxamine in treatment of major depressive disorder

Objective. To compare the costs and effectiveness of escitalopram with venlafaxine and fluvoxamine for treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) from the societal perspective in Singapore. Methods. The decision analytical model consisted of two pathways, one for primary care and the other for secondary care over a time horizon of 6 months. The parameters in the model were derived from clinical trials and results of a survey on local general practitioners and psychiatrists. The proportion of patients successfully treated was the main effectiveness measurement. Both direct and indirect costs were estimated and reported in 2007 Singapore dollars. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results. The overall success rate for the 6-month treatment was 68.1% for escitalopram compared to 66.0% for venlafaxine. The total costs per patient treated were $2845 for escitalopram compared to $3176 for venlafaxine. The overall success rate was 64.7% for escitalopram and 60.0% for fluvoxamine. The total costs per patient treated were $3133 for escitalopram compared to $3297 for fluvoxamine. Probability sensitivity analysis demonstrated that escitalopram was dominant to venlafaxine and fluvoxamine in more than 95% of the random samples. Conclusion. Escitalopram is a cost-effective pharmacotherapy for MDD compared to venlafaxine and fluvoxamine.

Comparison of treatment persistence, hospital utilization and costs among major depressive disorder geriatric patients treated with escitalopram versus other SSRI/SNRI antidepressants

OBJECTIVE

To assess treatment persistence, hospitalization outcomes and mean healthcare costs of geriatric major depressive disorder (MDD) patients treated with escitalopram compared to other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients aged > or = 65 years with at least one inpatient claim or two independent claims associated with MDD diagnosis were identified in the IHCIS National Managed Care Database (2003-2005). Patients were continuously enrolled for at least > or = 12 months, filled at least one prescription for an SSRI/SNRI and did not use any second-generation antidepressant during the 6 months pre-index date. Unadjusted and multivariate analyses adjusting for baseline characteristics were conducted.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Treatment persistence, hospitalization utilization, and average prescription drug, medical, and total healthcare costs were compared between patients initiated on escitalopram versus other SSRI/SNRIs.

RESULTS

Escitalopram-treated patients (N = 459) were less likely to discontinue treatment (HR = 0.85, p = 0.012) or switch to another second-generation antidepressant (HR = 0.76, p = 0.006) compared to patients treated with other SSRI/SNRIs (N = 1517). Escitalopram-treated patients had 39% fewer hospitalization days (p = 0.004). Both groups had similar mean prescription drug costs ($1659 vs. $1630, p = 0.687). After controlling for baseline characteristics, escitalopram-treated patients had lower mean total medical service costs ($9425 vs. $12,703, p < 0.001) and mean total healthcare costs ($11,043 vs. $14,163, p < 0.001).

LIMITATIONS

This study's limitations include its small sample size, short observational periods and exclusivity of indirect costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Geriatric patients treated with escitalopram had higher treatment persistence, fewer hospitalization days and lower total healthcare costs than patients on other SSRI/SNRIs after controlling for baseline characteristics. Most of the cost savings were due to reductions in hospitalizations.

Escitalopram for the treatment of major depression and anxiety disorders

Escitalopram is the S-enantiomer of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) citalopram, which contains equal amounts of the S- and R-forms in a racemic mixture. Escitalopram is the most selective SSRI, with almost no significant affinity to other tested receptors. It has been demonstrated that it is escitalopram that carries the therapeutic potential of citalopram, and has statistically superior and clinically relevant properties compared with citalopram. Escitalopram is at least as effective in the treatment of depression and anxiety as other SSRIs, as well as venlafaxine, bupropion and duloxetine. Owing to multiple metabolic degrading pathways, the clinically relevant interactions of escitalopram with other drugs are minimal. Compared with other antidepressants, escitalopram is generally better tolerated, its onset of action is relatively fast, and its use may have cost-effectiveness and cost-utility advantages. Escitalopram is an effective first-line option in the management of patients with major depression, including severe forms, and various anxiety disorders.