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

Protriptyline, a tricyclic antidepressant, inhibits voltage-dependent K+ channels in rabbit coronary arterial smooth muscle cells

In this study, we explore the inhibitory effects of protriptyline, a tricyclic antidepressant drug, on voltage-dependent K+ (Kv) channels of rabbit coronary arterial smooth muscle cells using a whole-cell patch clamp technique. Protriptyline inhibited the vascular Kv current in a concentration-dependent manner, with an IC50 value of 5.05 ± 0.97 μM and a Hill coefficient of 0.73 ± 0.04. Protriptyline did not affect the steady-state activation kinetics. However, the drug shifted the steady-state inactivation curve to the left, suggesting that protriptyline inhibited the Kv channels by changing their voltage sensitivity. Application of 20 repetitive train pulses (1 or 2 Hz) progressively increased the protriptyline-induced inhibition of the Kv current, suggesting that protriptyline inhibited Kv channels in a use (state)-dependent manner. The extent of Kv current inhibition by protriptyline was similar during the first, second, and third step pulses. These results suggest that protriptyline-induced inhibition of the Kv current mainly occurs principally in the closed state. The increase in the inactivation recovery time constant in the presence of protriptyline also supported use (state)-dependent inhibition of Kv channels by the drug. In the presence of the Kv1.5 inhibitor, protriptyline did not induce further inhibition of the Kv channels. However, pretreatment with a Kv2.1 or Kv7 inhibitor induced further inhibition of Kv current to a similar extent to that observed with protriptyline alone. Thus, we conclude that protriptyline inhibits the vascular Kv channels in a concentration- and use-dependent manner by changing their gating properties. Furthermore, protriptyline-induced inhibition of Kv channels mainly involves the Kv1.5.

Inhibitory effect of the tricyclic antidepressant amitriptyline on voltage-dependent K+ channels in rabbit coronary arterial smooth muscle cells

Amitriptyline, a tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) drug, is widely used in treatment of psychiatric disorders. However, the side effects of amitriptyline on vascular K⁺ channels remain to be determined. Therefore, we investigated the effect of the tricyclic antidepressant and serotonin reuptake inhibitor amitriptyline on voltage-dependent K⁺ (Kv) channels in freshly isolated rabbit coronary arterial smooth muscle cells, using the whole-cell patch clamp technique. The Kv current amplitudes were inhibited by amitriptyline in a concentration-dependent manner, with an apparent IC₅₀ value of 2.2 ± 0.14 μmol/L and a Hill coefficient of 0.87 ± 0.03. Amitriptyline shifted the activation curve to a more positive potential, but had no significant effect on the inactivation curve, suggesting that amitriptyline altered the voltage sensitivity of Kv channels. Pretreatment with Kv1.5 and Kv1.2 channel inhibitors did not alter the inhibitory effect of amitriptyline on Kv channels. Additionally, application of train pulses (1 and 2 Hz) did not affect amitriptyline-induced inhibition of Kv currents, which suggested that the action of amitriptyline on Kv channels was not use (state)-dependent. From these results, we concluded that amitriptyline inhibited the channels in a concentration-dependent, but state-independent manner.

Nortriptyline, a tricyclic antidepressant, inhibits voltage-dependent K+ channels in coronary arterial smooth muscle cells

We demonstrated the effect of nortriptyline, a tricyclic antidepressant drug and serotonin reuptake inhibitor, on voltage-dependent K⁺ (Kv) channels in freshly isolated rabbit coronary arterial smooth muscle cells using a whole-cell patch clamp technique. Nortriptyline inhibited Kv currents in a concentration-dependent manner, with an apparent IC₅₀ value of 2.86±0.52 µM and a Hill coefficient of 0.77±0.1. Although application of nortriptyline did not change the activation curve, nortriptyline shifted the inactivation current toward a more negative potential. Application of train pulses (1 or 2 Hz) did not change the nortriptyline-induced Kv channel inhibition, suggesting that the effects of nortiprtyline were not use-dependent. Preincubation with the Kv1.5 and Kv2.1/2.2 inhibitors, DPO-1 and guangxitoxin did not affect nortriptyline inhibition of Kv channels. From these results, we concluded that nortriptyline inhibited Kv channels in a concentration-dependent and state-independent manner independently of serotonin reuptake.

Deviation from intention to treat analysis in randomised trials and treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether deviation from the standard intention to treat analysis has an influence on treatment effect estimates of randomised trials.

DESIGN

Meta-epidemiological study.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, via PubMed, searched between 2006 and 2010; 43 systematic reviews of interventions and 310 randomised trials were included.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

From each year searched, random selection of 5% of intervention reviews with a meta-analysis that included at least one trial that deviated from the standard intention to treat approach. Basic characteristics of the systematic reviews and randomised trials were extracted. Information on the reporting of intention to treat analysis, outcome data, risk of bias items, post-randomisation exclusions, and funding were extracted from each trial. Trials were classified as: ITT (reporting the standard intention to treat approach), mITT (reporting a deviation from the standard approach), and no ITT (reporting no approach). Within each meta-analysis, treatment effects were compared between mITT and ITT trials, and between mITT and no ITT trials. The ratio of odds ratios was calculated (value <1 indicated larger treatment effects in mITT trials than in other trial categories).

RESULTS

50 meta-analyses and 322 comparisons of randomised trials (from 84 ITT trials, 118 mITT trials, and 108 no ITT trials; 12 trials contributed twice to the analysis) were examined. Compared with ITT trials, mITT trials showed a larger intervention effect (pooled ratio of odds ratios 0.83 (95% confidence interval 0.71 to 0.96), P=0.01; between meta-analyses variance τ(2)=0.13). Adjustments for sample size, type of centre, funding, items of risk of bias, post-randomisation exclusions, and variance of log odds ratio yielded consistent results (0.80 (0.69 to 0.94), P=0.005; τ(2)=0.08). After exclusion of five influential studies, results remained consistent (0.85 (0.75 to 0.98); τ(2)=0.08). The comparison between mITT trials and no ITT trials showed no statistical difference between the two groups (adjusted ratio of odds ratios 0.92 (0.70 to 1.23); τ(2)=0.57).

CONCLUSIONS

Trials that deviated from the intention to treat analysis showed larger intervention effects than trials that reported the standard approach. Where an intention to treat analysis is impossible to perform, authors should clearly report who is included in the analysis and attempt to perform multiple imputations.

A double-blind randomized study comparing plasma level-targeted dose imipramine and high-dose venlafaxine in depressed inpatients

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of plasma level-targeted dose imipramine and high-dose venlafaxine in depressed inpatients in a randomized double-blind study.

METHODS

The study included 85 patients with a diagnosis of major depressive episode according to the DSM IV criteria and a 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) score ≥ 17. Patients were randomized to imipramine or venlafaxine. The dose of imipramine was adjusted for each patient to a predefined blood level of 200-300 ng/ml. The dose of venlafaxine was increased gradually to 300-375 mg/day. Efficacy was evaluated after 7 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

The mean age of the study group was 54.5 (range 29-82) years. There was no significant difference according to the primary outcome criterion of a ≥50% reduction on the HAM-D score: 17 of 43 (39.5%) patients on imipramine were responders compared to 21 of 42 (50%) patients on venlafaxine. When considering remission as outcome criterion (HAM-D score ≤ 7), 10 of 43 (23.3%) patients on imipramine were remitters compared to 15 of 42 (35.7%) patients on venlafaxine; again, no significant difference. When analysing a subpopulation of patients without psychotic features, with remission as outcome criterion, a significant difference was found: 5 of 34 (14.7%) patients on imipramine were remitters compared to 12 of 31 (38.7%) patients on venlafaxine.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study used optimal doses in depressed inpatients and showed that venlafaxine is at least equal in efficacy to imipramine. The results in the subgroup without psychotic features indicate a possible superiority of venlafaxine.

Molecular adaptation to chronic antidepressant treatment: evidence for a more rapid response to the novel α₂-adrenoceptor antagonist/5-HT-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), S35966, compared to the SNRI, venlafaxine

Evidence of early changes in neural plasticity may aid the prediction of rapid-onset antidepressant drugs. Here we compared the dual α₂-adrenoceptor antagonist/5-HT-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), S35966, to the SNRI, venlafaxine, with regards to their effect on rat brain expression of a panel of neural plasticity-related genes: Arc, BDNF, and VGLUT1, as well as Homer1a and Shank1B (not studied previously). Abundance of mRNA was determined by in-situ hybridization in cortical and hippocampal regions 2 h and 16 h following drug administration for 14, 7 and 1 d. After 14 d, both S35966 and venlafaxine increased mRNA of all genes, including Homer1a and Shank1B, and effects were similarly time- and region-dependent. After 7 d, S35966 elevated Arc, Shank1B and BDNF mRNA, whereas venlafaxine increased Shank1B mRNA only. Finally, after 1 d (acute administration), S35966 increased Arc and Homer1a mRNA whereas venlafaxine had no effect on any gene examined. In summary, a 14-d course of treatment with S35966 or venlafaxine induced similar region- and time-dependent increases in expression of neural plasticity-related genes including Shank1B and Homer1a. Some genes responded earlier to S35966, suggesting that drugs with combined α₂-adrenoceptor antagonist/SNRI properties may elicit more rapid changes in markers of neural plasticity than a SNRI alone.

What can we learn from Chinese randomized controlled trials? A systematic review and meta-analysis of Chinese venlafaxine studies

This systematic review evaluated Chinese trials examining the efficacy of venlafaxine in the treatment of depression. Chinese databases CNKI and VIP and western databases were searched for blinded randomized controlled trial publications comparing venlafaxine to other antidepressants or placebo (in English or Chinese). Trials had to establish diagnosis of depression according to the Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or International Classification of Diseases. Studies were excluded if more than 20% of participants had a primary diagnosis of dysthymia or if more than 15% had a primary diagnosis of bipolar disorder. Effect sizes were calculated as Hedges' g for rating scale scores and Mantel-Haenszel risk ratios (MH RR) for response and remission data. Effect sizes were combined in a fixed-effects model. A total of 25 studies were included. Nine trials compared venlafaxine to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor; placebo-controlled trials were lacking. Quality was at best modest, and all trials were underpowered. There were more responders (MH RR, 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.15) and remitters (MH RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.02-1.24) in venlafaxine groups compared with those in tricyclic antidepressant group. Hamilton Depression Rating Scale end point scores in the venlafaxine groups were lower (Hedges' g = 0.16; 95% CI, 0.04-0.27), and venlafaxine was better tolerated than tricyclic antidepressant (Hedges' g = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.37-0.74). There were no significant differences between venlafaxine and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor on any of these parameters. Analyses of publication bias were inconclusive. Chinese researchers have published a number of randomized controlled trials comparing venlafaxine to active comparators, but study quality was found to be low. To make optimal use of their research potential Chinese, researchers will have to improve trial reporting and the peer-review process.

A systematic review of duloxetine and venlafaxine in major depression, including unpublished data

OBJECTIVE

To determine the short-term antidepressant efficacy and tolerability of duloxetine and venlafaxine vs. each other, placebo, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and tri- and tetracyclic antidepressants (TCAs) in adults with major depression.

METHOD

Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials identified through bibliographical databases and other sources, including unpublished manufacturer reports.

RESULTS

Fifty-four studies including venlafaxine arms (n = 12,816), 14 including duloxetine arms (n = 4,528), and two direct comparisons (n = 836) were analysed. Twenty-three studies were previously unpublished. In the meta-analysis, both duloxetine and venlafaxine showed superior efficacy (higher remission and response rates) and inferior tolerability (higher discontinuation rates due to adverse events) to placebo. Venlafaxine had superior efficacy in response rates but inferior tolerability to SSRIs (OR = 1.20, 95% CI 1.07-1.35 and 1.38, 95% CI 1.15-1.66, respectively), and no differences in efficacy and tolerability to TCAs. Duloxetine did not show any advantages over other antidepressants and was less well tolerated than SSRIs and venlafaxine (OR = 1.53, 95% CI 1.10-2.13 and OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.16-2.78, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Rather than being a first-line option, venlafaxine appears to be a valid alternative in patients who do not tolerate or respond to SSRIs or TCAs. Duloxetine does not seem to be indicated as a first-line treatment.

Treatment of unipolar psychotic depression: a randomized, double-blind study comparing imipramine, venlafaxine, and venlafaxine plus quetiapine

OBJECTIVE

It remains unclear whether unipolar psychotic depression should be treated with an antidepressant and an antipsychotic or with an antidepressant alone.

METHOD

In a multi-center RCT, 122 patients (18-65 years) with DSM-IV-TR psychotic major depression and HAM-D-17 > or = 18 were randomized to 7 weeks imipramine (plasma-levels 200-300 microg/l), venlafaxine (375 mg/day) or venlafaxine-quetiapine (375 mg/day, 600 mg/day). Primary outcome was response on HAM-D-17. Secondary outcomes were response on CGI and remission (HAM-D-17).

RESULTS

Venlafaxine-quetiapine was more effective than venlafaxine with no significant differences between venlafaxine-quetiapine and imipramine, or between imipramine and venlafaxine. Secondary outcomes followed the same pattern.

CONCLUSION

That unipolar psychotic depression should be treated with a combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic and not with an antidepressant alone, can be considered evidence based with regard to venlafaxine-quetiapine vs. venlafaxine monotherapy. Whether this is also the case for imipramine monotherapy is likely, but cannot be concluded from the data.