Levomilnacipran ER 40 mg and 80 mg in patients with major depressive disorder: a phase III, randomized, double-blind, fixed-dose, placebo-controlled study

Safety and Efficacy of Levomilnacipran Extended Release in Pediatric Patients Aged 7-17 Years with Major Depressive Disorder: Results of Two Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind Studies

Objective: Major depressive disorder (MDD) presents a significant psychosocial burden, and there is an unmet need for additional treatment options in pediatric patients. Here, we report the results of two phase 3 multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled, parallel-group studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of levomilnacipran extended release in children and adolescents with MDD. Methods: In the first study, LVM-MD-11, patients aged 12-17 years received daily doses of levomilnacipran 40 mg (n = 134), levomilnacipran 80 mg (n = 138), fluoxetine 20 mg (n = 134), or placebo (n = 141). In the second study, LVM-MD-14, patients aged 7-17 years received levomilnacipran 40 to 80 mg (n = 166), fluoxetine 20 mg (n = 166), or placebo (n = 160) daily. Primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were changes in Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R) total score and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) score, respectively. Results: In LVM-MD-11, there were no significant differences in change in CDRS-R total score between patients treated daily with placebo (least squares mean [LSM] change in CDRS-R total score -22.9) versus levomilnacipran 40 mg (-23.3; p = 0.8035) or 80 mg (-22.6; p = 0.8681). Similarly, in LVM-MD-14, there were no significant differences in LSM change in CDRS-R total score with placebo (-21.3) versus levomilnacipran 40 to 80 mg daily (-23.0; p = 0.2215). There were also no significant differences between the fluoxetine and placebo groups in either study for changes in CDRS-R total score. Changes in CGI-S score were not significant between placebo and levomilnacipran 40 to 80 mg daily or between placebo and fluoxetine. Levomilnacipran was generally well tolerated. Conclusions: The high placebo response in this study prevented the detection of an effect of levomilnacipran in children and adolescents. Clinical Trial Registration numbers: NCT02431806 and NCT03569475.

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.

Recent Developments in Pharmacotherapy of Depression: Bench to Bedside

For the last 70 years, we did not move beyond the monoamine hypothesis of depression until the approval of the S-enantiomer of ketamine, an N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor blocker and the first non-monoaminergic antidepressant characterized by rapid antidepressant and antisuicidal effects. A similar profile has been reported with another NMDA receptor antagonist, dextromethorphan, which has also been approved to manage depression in combination with bupropion. More recently, the approval of a positive allosteric modulator of GABA-A receptors, brexanolone, has added to the list of recent breakthroughs with the relatively rapid onset of antidepressant efficacy. However, multiple factors have compromised the clinical utility of these exciting discoveries in the general population, including high drug acquisition costs, mandatory monitoring requirements, parenteral drug administration, lack of insurance coverage, indirect COVID-19 effects on healthcare systems, and training gaps in psychopharmacology. This narrative review aims to analyze the clinical pharmacology of recently approved antidepressants and discuss potential barriers to the bench-to-bedside transfer of knowledge and clinical application of exciting recent discoveries. Overall, clinically meaningful advances in the treatment of depression have not reached a large proportion of depressed patients, including those with treatment-resistant depression, who might benefit the most from the novel antidepressants.

The future of psychopharmacology: a critical appraisal of ongoing phase 2/3 trials, and of some current trends aiming to de-risk trial programmes of novel agents

Despite considerable progress in pharmacotherapy over the past seven decades, many mental disorders remain insufficiently treated. This situation is in part due to the limited knowledge of the pathophysiology of these disorders and the lack of biological markers to stratify and individualize patient selection, but also to a still restricted number of mechanisms of action being targeted in monotherapy or combination/augmentation treatment, as well as to a variety of challenges threatening the successful development and testing of new drugs. In this paper, we first provide an overview of the most promising drugs with innovative mechanisms of action that are undergoing phase 2 or 3 testing for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, anxiety and trauma-related disorders, substance use disorders, and dementia. Promising repurposing of established medications for new psychiatric indications, as well as variations in the modulation of dopamine, noradrenaline and serotonin receptor functioning, are also considered. We then critically discuss the clinical trial parameters that need to be considered in depth when developing and testing new pharmacological agents for the treatment of mental disorders. Hurdles and perils threatening success of new drug development and testing include inadequacy and imprecision of inclusion/exclusion criteria and ratings, sub-optimally suited clinical trial participants, multiple factors contributing to a large/increasing placebo effect, and problems with statistical analyses. This information should be considered in order to de-risk trial programmes of novel agents or known agents for novel psychiatric indications, increasing their chances of success.

The clinical utility of newer antidepressant agents: Understanding the role in management of MDD

Whereas MDD is characterized in part by changes in mood, other symptoms can also cause significant impairment, including sexual dysfunction, cognitive impairment, and fatigue. Newer antidepressants are explored with the goal of more optimally treating these non–mood-related symptoms of MDD. The 3 oral antidepressants that have been FDA-approved most recently include vortioxetine, vilazodone, and levomilnacipran. Unique features of these antidepressants are explored through 3 patient cases.

Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy: Updated comparisons and meta-analyses of newer versus older trials

BACKGROUND

Valid assessment of drug efficacy and safety requires an evidence base free of reporting bias. Using trial reports in Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug approval packages as a gold standard, we previously found that the published literature inflated the apparent efficacy of antidepressant drugs. The objective of the current study was to determine whether this has improved with recently approved drugs.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Using medical and statistical reviews in FDA drug approval packages, we identified 30 Phase II/III double-blind placebo-controlled acute monotherapy trials, involving 13,747 patients, of desvenlafaxine, vilazodone, levomilnacipran, and vortioxetine; we then identified corresponding published reports. We compared the data from this newer cohort of antidepressants (approved February 2008 to September 2013) with the previously published dataset on 74 trials of 12 older antidepressants (approved December 1987 to August 2002). Using logistic regression, we examined the effects of trial outcome and trial cohort (newer versus older) on transparent reporting (whether published and FDA conclusions agreed). Among newer antidepressants, transparent publication occurred more with positive (15/15 = 100%) than negative (7/15 = 47%) trials (OR 35.1, CI95% 1.8 to 693). Controlling for trial outcome, transparent publication occurred more with newer than older trials (OR 6.6, CI95% 1.6 to 26.4). Within negative trials, transparent reporting increased from 11% to 47%. We also conducted and contrasted FDA- and journal-based meta-analyses. For newer antidepressants, FDA-based effect size (ESFDA) was 0.24 (CI95% 0.18 to 0.30), while journal-based effect size (ESJournals) was 0.29 (CI95% 0.23 to 0.36). Thus, effect size inflation, presumably due to reporting bias, was 0.05, less than for older antidepressants (0.10). Limitations of this study include a small number of trials and drugs-belonging to a single class-and a focus on efficacy (versus safety).

CONCLUSIONS

Reporting bias persists but appears to have diminished for newer, compared to older, antidepressants. Continued efforts are needed to further improve transparency in the scientific literature.

Urinary side effects of psychotropic drugs: A systematic review and metanalysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of psychotropic drugs on bladder function.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review was carried out by searching PubMed and Embase databases for randomized controlled trials enrolling patients treated with psychotropic drugs with available information on treatment-related urinary disorders.

RESULTS

A total of 52 studies was selected. In antidepressant therapy, bladder voiding symptoms, rather than storage symptoms, were more frequently observed. Pooled analysis demonstrated a higher odds ratio (OR) of voiding  disorders in comparison with placebo (OR: 3.30; confidence interval [CI]: 1.90-5.72; 7856 participants; p < 0.001). Odds for voiding dysfunction was higher for tricyclic antidepressants and for Serotonin and Norepinephrine Reuptake Inhibitors (SNRIs) when compared to Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs). Treatment with antipsychotics was associated with heterogeneous urinary disorders  including emptying and storage disorders. OR for incontinence in patients with dementia taking  antipsychotics was higher than placebo (OR: 4.09; CI: 1.71-9.79, p = 0.002) with no difference between different atypical antipsychotics. Rate of voiding disorders was not different between conventional and atypical antipsychotics (OR: 1.64; CI: 0.79-3.39, p = 0.19), although quetiapine showed higher odds to cause voiding dysfunction than other atypical antipsychotics (OR: 2.14; CI: 1.41-3.26; p > 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients taking tricyclic antidepressants or SNRIs, bladder voiding disorders, could be the side effects of therapy rather than symptoms of a urological disease. Patients treated with these drugs should be actively monitored for the appearance of urinary symptoms. Antipsychotic treatment is associated with various urinary side effects requiring a tailored approach.

Is Obesity A Determinant Of Success With Pharmacological Treatment For Depression? A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis And Meta-Regression

BACKGROUND

The bidirectional association between Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and obesity suggests that body mass index (BMI) at the baseline could influence remission rates (RR) with pharmacological treatment. We evaluated the influence of baseline BMI on the chances of remission among patients with MDD administered antidepressants.

METHODS

Based on the guidelines of the PRISMA statement, we conducted a systematic review on PubMed, Cochrane and Embase databases with subsequent meta-analysis and meta-regression. We included only randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of antidepressants of different classes (monotherapy and combined therapies) that evidenced baseline BMI assessment. We created a model to describe the linear relationship between baseline BMI and RR.

RESULTS

Our systematic review yielded 70 studies with a total of 9,779 patients in the active group and 7,136 patients in the placebo group. In placebo controlled studies, BMI influenced the RR of patients randomized to active treatment. The RR for antidepressants in monotherapy was higher in normal weight to overweight patients rather than obese patients (33% vs 12%, respectively). Also in monotherapy, the RR is higher when the study is conducted on patients with a lower baseline BMI (p=0.029). For combined therapies, the pooled RR was higher in obese patients rather than in normal weight to overweight patients (75% vs 17%, respectively).

LIMITATIONS

BMI provides no information about body composition and obesity can be related to several potential confounders that potentially influence RR.

CONCLUSION

The RR with antidepressant therapy seems to be associated with baseline BMI in patients with MDD, although this simple variable was insufficiently explored so far.

Cost-effectiveness of vortioxetine compared with levomilnacipran and vilazodone in patients with major depressive disorder switching from an initial antidepressant

Introduction: Many patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) do not achieve remission with their first antidepressant (AD), resulting in a high burden due to treatment failure. Vortioxetine is a valid treatment option for patients with MDD only partially responding to their first AD. Characterization of vortioxetine's potential benefits versus other approved treatments is important. Areas covered: The cost-effectiveness of vortioxetine, including cognitive outcomes, was modeled in comparison with levomilnacipran and vilazodone for patients switched to these medications after inadequate responses to a first AD. Expert opinion: Vortioxetine was associated with incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains versus levomilnacipran (0.008) or vilazodone (0.009). Vortioxetine was dominant versus levomilnacipran and cost-effective versus vilazodone (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER],33,829 USD/QALY). In sensitivity analyses using residual cognitive dysfunction rates (vortioxetine, 49%; levomilnacipran, 58%, and vilazodone, 64%), incremental QALY gains for vortioxetine versus levomilnacipran (0.0085) or vilazodone (0.0109) were found. Vortioxetine remained dominant versus levomilnacipran and cost-effective versus vilazodone (ICER, 27,633 USD/QALY). ICER reduction was found with cognition outcomes inclusion. This model provides additional support for considering vortioxetine for patients requiring a switch of MDD treatments, although its conclusions are limited by the data available for inclusion. Additional research and real-world trials are needed to confirm the findings.

Hamilton scale and MADRS are interchangeable in meta-analyses but can disagree at trial level

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Major depressive disorder is a multidimensional disease, in which demonstrating the efficacy of treatments is difficult. The Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) and the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) cover different domains but are used interchangeably as primary measures of the outcome in trials and-with standardized measures-in meta-analyses. We aimed at understanding (i) whether the choice of the outcome measurement tool can influence the outcome of a trial, and if so, (ii) whether one systematically outperforms the other, and (iii) whether using standardized measures of the effect in meta-analysis is justified.

METHODS

Short-term randomized trials in patients with major depressive disorder that used both the scales were systematically searched and the results were collected. To quantify the differences in the results-both in terms of the standardized mean difference (SMD) and odds ratio (OR) for response-and their range, data were analyzed and plotted with the Bland-Altman method.

RESULTS

161 comparisons from 80 studies were included, involving a total of 18,189 patients. Neither of the two scales appears systematically more sensitive to the treatment effect than the other in terms of SMDs (P-value = 0.06, 95% CI -0.044 to 0.001) or ORs (P-value = 0.15, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.04). However, the variability of differences between the HRSD and MADRS largely depends on the number of patients included in the comparison.

CONCLUSION

No systematic differences between the two scales were found supporting the use of standardized measures in meta-analyses. However, the same trial may give very different results with either scale, especially in small trials. Further research is needed to understand the causes of this variability.

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.

New Treatment Options for Depression: A Primer for Internists

Depression continues to be a challenging condition to treat despite the myriad treatment options available. Primary care providers are increasingly tasked with providing second- and third-line treatments for major depressive disorder, and thus, should be familiar with newer medication therapies that are available. In this article, we aim to provide the general internist and other providers who treat depression in their practice with a succinct review of recent developments in the treatment of depression.

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.

Relapse prevention with levomilnacipran ER in adults with major depressive disorder: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Levomilnacipran extended release (ER) is a serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor approved for major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults. This study was designed to evaluate relapse prevention with levomilnacipran ER in patients with MDD.

METHODS

Patients (≥18 years) with MDD (N = 644) received 20 weeks of open-label treatment with levomilnacipran ER 40, 80, or 120 mg/d (8 weeks flexible dosing; 12 weeks fixed dosing). Patients with a Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score ≤12 from the end of week 8 to week 20 were randomized to 26 weeks of double-blind treatment with levomilnacipran ER (same dosage; n = 165) or placebo (n = 159). The primary efficacy endpoint was time to relapse, defined as insufficient therapeutic response (≥2-point increase from randomization in Clinical Global Impression of Severity score, risk of suicide, need for hospitalization due to worsening of depression, or need for alternative antidepressant treatment as determined by the investigator) or an MADRS total score ≥18 at 2 consecutive visits.

RESULTS

In the double-blind intent-to-treat population, levomilnacipran ER-treated patients had a significantly longer time to relapse compared with placebo (hazard ratio = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.33-0.92; P = 0.0212). Crude relapse rates were 14.5% (levomilnacipran ER) and 24.5% (placebo). Double-blind treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were reported for 58.8% and 56.0% of levomilnacipran ER and placebo patients, respectively; 3.0% and 1.3% discontinued due to AEs, and 1.2% and 0.6% had serious AEs, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Levomilnacipran ER (40-120 mg/d) was effective in preventing relapse in patients with MDD. Safety and tolerability results were consistent with levomilnacipran ER acute studies.

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.

Serotonin and Norepinephrine Reuptake Inhibitors

This chapter covers antidepressants that fall into the class of serotonin (5-HT) and norepinephrine (NE) reuptake inhibitors. That is, they bind to the 5-HT and NE transporters with varying levels of potency and binding affinity ratios. Unlike the selective serotonin (5-HT) reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), most of these antidepressants have an ascending rather than a flat dose-response curve. The chapter provides a brief review of the chemistry, pharmacology, metabolism, safety and adverse effects, clinical use, and therapeutic indications of each antidepressant. Venlafaxine, a phenylethylamine, is a relatively weak 5-HT and weaker NE uptake inhibitor with a 30-fold difference in binding of the two transporters. Therefore, the drug has a clear dose progression, with low doses predominantly binding to the 5-HT transporter and more binding of the NE transporter as the dose ascends. Venlafaxine is metabolized to the active metabolite O-desmethylvenlafaxine (ODV; desvenlafaxine) by CYP2D6, and it therefore is subject to significant inter-individual variation in blood levels and response dependent on variations in CYP2D6 metabolism. The half-life of venlafaxine is short at about 5 h, with the ODV metabolite being 12 h. Both parent compound and metabolite have low protein binding and neither inhibit CYP enzymes. Therefore, both venlafaxine and desvenlafaxine are potential options if drug-drug interactions are a concern, although venlafaxine may be subject to drug-drug interactions with CYP2D6 inhibitors. At low doses, the adverse effect profile is similar to an SSRI with nausea, diarrhea, fatigue or somnolence, and sexual side effects, while venlafaxine at higher doses can produce mild increases in blood pressure, diaphoresis, tachycardia, tremors, and anxiety. A disadvantage of venlafaxine relative to the SSRIs is the potential for dose-dependent blood pressure elevation, most likely due to the NE reuptake inhibition caused by higher doses; however, this adverse effect is infrequently observed at doses below 225 mg per day. Venlafaxine also has a number of potential advantages over the SSRIs, including an ascending dose-antidepressant response curve, with possibly greater overall efficacy at higher doses. Venlafaxine is approved for MDD as well as generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, and panic disorder. Desvenlafaxine is the primary metabolite of venlafaxine, and it is also a relatively low-potency 5-HT and NE uptake inhibitor. Like venlafaxine it has a favorable drug-drug interaction profile. It is subject to CYP3A4 metabolism, and it is therefore vulnerable to enzyme inhibition or induction. However, the primary metabolic pathway is direct conjugation. It is approved in the narrow dose range of 50-100 mg per day. Duloxetine is a more potent 5-HT and NE reuptake inhibitor with a more balanced profile of binding at about 10:1 for 5HT and NE transporter binding. It is also a moderate inhibitor of CYP2D6, so that modest dose reductions and careful monitoring will be needed when prescribing duloxetine in combination with drugs that are preferentially metabolized by CYP2D6. The most common side effects identified in clinical trials are nausea, dry mouth, dizziness, constipation, insomnia, asthenia, and hypertension, consistent with its mechanisms of action. Clinical trials to date have demonstrated rates of response and remission in patients with major depression that are comparable to other marketed antidepressants reviewed in this book. In addition to approval for MDD, duloxetine is approved for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, and musculoskeletal pain. Milnacipran is marketed as an antidepressant in some countries, but not in the USA. It is approved in the USA and some other countries as a treatment for fibromyalgia. It has few pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions with other drugs. Milnacipran has a half-life of about 10 h and therefore needs to be administered twice per day. It is metabolized by CYP3A4, but the major pathway for clearance is direct conjugation and renal elimination. As with other drugs in this class, dysuria is a common, troublesome, and dose-dependent adverse effect (occurring in up to 7% of patients). High-dose milnacipran has been reported to cause blood pressure and pulse elevations. Levomilnacipran is the levorotary enantiomer of milnacipran, and it is pharmacologically very similar to the racemic compound, although the side effects may be milder within the approved dosing range. As with other NE uptake inhibitors, it may increase blood pressure and pulse, although it appears to do so less than some other medications. All medications in the class can cause serotonin syndrome when combined with MAOIs.

Efficacy and tolerability of different doses of three new antidepressants for treating major depressive disorder: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis

In last decade, the US FDA has approved three new antidepressants: vortioxetine, levomilnacipran, and vilazodone. Many studies have researched the effects of these antidepressants on major depressive disorder (MDD), but they have not determined the optimum dosage. This meta-analysis investigated the efficacies of these three drugs at different dosages in the treatment of MDD. The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, psycINFO, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched to identify relevant literature. The primary outcomes were efficacy [quantified as the change from baseline in total score on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS)] and tolerability (discontinuations due to adverse events). The effect size was quantified as the weighted mean difference for continuous data and the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data. Overall 22 studies were included. The changes in the MADRS total score were significantly higher for vortioxetine at 5, 10, 20, and 10-20 mg/day than for placebo. The tolerability was significantly worse for 20 mg/day vortioxetine than for placebo (RR = 1.84, 95% confidence interval = 1.13 to 3.02). In addition, increasing the dosage improved the efficacy of vortioxetine but worsened the tolerability. Levomilnacipran and vilazodone at any dosage produced a significantly higher mean change from baseline in the MADRS total score and a worse tolerability than for placebo. In conclusion, considering both efficacy and tolerability, 10 mg/day vortioxetine might be optimal for the treatment of MDD. The long-term efficacy and safety of vortioxetine needed to be investigated, and more studies of levomilnacipran and vilazodone are needed to define their optimal dosages.

Measures of suicidality in phase 3 clinical trials of levomilnacipran ER in adults with major depressive disorder

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of levomilnacipran extended-release (ER) on suicidal ideation and behavior in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHODS

Post hoc analyses were conducted in patients from 4 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials and a long-term, open-label extension study of levomilnacipran ER (40-120 mg/d) in adults with MDD. Analyses included incidence of suicide-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs); incidence of Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) suicidal ideation (score=1-5) and behavior (score=6-10); percent of patients who shifted from no C-SSRS suicidal ideation/behavior at baseline to suicidal ideation during treatment (worsened from score=0 to score=1-5), or vice-versa (improved from score=1-5 to score=0).

RESULTS

Suicide-related TEAEs occurred in<1% of patients in the levomilnacipran ER studies. The incidence of C-SSRS suicidal ideation was 22.2%, 23.9%, and 21.7% for placebo, short-term levomilnacipran ER, and long-term levomilnacipran ER, respectively; C-SSRS suicidal behavior was<1% in all of these groups. In the short-term studies, the percentage of patients with C-SSRS shifts were as follows: worsening from score=0 to score=1-5 (placebo, 8.6%; levomilnacipran ER, 11.0%); improvement from score=1-5 to score=0 (placebo, 24.0%; levomilnacipran ER, 27.7%).

CONCLUSION

In adult MDD patients, the incidence of suicidal ideation and behavior was similar between placebo and short-term levomilnacipran ER as indicated by TEAE reports and C-SSRS scores. Worsening in C-SSRS scores was also similar between placebo and levomilnacipran ER. There was no indication of increased suicidality during longer courses of continued therapy. Together, these findings suggest that this medication is not associated with increased risks of suicidal ideation or behavior.

The role of new antidepressants in clinical practice in Canada: a brief review of vortioxetine, levomilnacipran ER, and vilazodone

Although many branded and generic antidepressants are approved for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in Canada, efficacy and tolerability differ among patients, and new treatment options are needed. Symptom types (eg, fatigue, energy/motivation, cognition, and functioning), medication type, treatment duration, and the need for maintenance therapy are factors that may influence treatment effectiveness. Three antidepressants, vortioxetine, levomilnacipran extended-release (ER), and vilazodone have recently become available in Canada. The aim of this review is to contextualize differences in their mechanistic and clinical profiles, thereby providing practitioners with knowledge to support treatment decisions. In trials versus placebo, each drug improved depressive symptoms in adult patients with MDD. The antidepressant effect of vortioxetine may be related to enhanced serotonergic activity via reuptake inhibition and agonism and/or antagonism of various serotonin receptors. Vortioxetine may also improve cognitive functioning in MDD, and has proven efficacious in relapse prevention. Nausea was the most commonly reported adverse event (AE); rates of sexual dysfunction were low and abrupt discontinuation was well tolerated. Levomilnacipran ER, a serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, demonstrated greater improvement versus placebo in functional impairment as well as depressive symptoms; in post hoc analyses, improvement in symptoms of motivation and energy were observed. Nausea was the most commonly reported AE; gradual discontinuation is recommended to avoid discontinuation syndrome. Vilazodone is a serotonin reuptake inhibitor and partial serotonergic 5-HT1A receptor agonist. In addition to improvement in depressive symptoms, evidence suggests that vilazodone may be particularly well suited for depressed patients with high anxiety levels. Diarrhea, nausea, and headache were the most common AEs; low rates of sexual dysfunction were reported. The 2016 Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments guidelines for MDD includes vortioxetine as a first-line treatment; levomilnacipran ER and vilazodone are considered as second-line treatments due to lack of relapse prevention data at the time of approval.

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.

Effects of levomilnacipran ER on noradrenergic symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and functional impairment in adults with major depressive disorder: Post hoc analysis of 5 clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of levomilnacipran extended-release (LVM-ER; 40-120mg/day) on noradrenergic (NA) and anxiety-related symptoms in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) and explore the relationship between these symptoms and functional impairment.

METHODS

Data were pooled from 5 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (N=2598). Anxiety and NA Cluster scores were developed by adding selected item scores from the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD₁₇). A path analysis was conducted to estimate the direct effects of LVM-ER on functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale [SDS] total score) and the indirect effects through changes in NA and Anxiety Cluster scores.

RESULTS

Mean improvements from baseline in NA and Anxiety Cluster scores were significantly greater with LVM-ER versus placebo (both P<0.001), as were the response rates (≥50% score improvement): NA Cluster (44% vs 34%; odds ratio=1.56; P<0.0001); Anxiety Cluster (39% vs 36%; odds ratio=1.19; P=0.041). Mean improvement in SDS total score was also significantly greater with LVM-ER versus placebo (-7.3 vs -5.6; P<0.0001). LVM-ER had an indirect effect on change in SDS total score that was mediated more strongly through NA Cluster score change (86%) than Anxiety Cluster score change (18%); the direct effect was negligible.

LIMITATIONS

NA and Anxiety Cluster scores, developed based on the face validity of individual MADRS and HAMD₁₇ items, were not predefined as efficacy outcomes in any of the studies.

CONCLUSION

In adults with MDD, LVM-ER indirectly improved functional impairment mainly through improvements in NA symptoms and less so via anxiety symptoms.

The Role of Levomilnacipran in the Management of Major Depressive Disorder: A Comprehensive Review

Levomilnacipran, the more active enantiomer of the serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) milnacipran, was recently approved in the US for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). The drug was developed as an extended release (ER) capsule formulation to allow for once-daily administration, thereby improving patient adherence. This agent differs from other available SNRIs in having a greater potency for inhibition of norepinephrine relative to serotonin reuptake. The efficacy of levomilnacipran ER has been evaluated in seven randomised, double-blind clinical trials (one Phase II and four Phase III trials, and two long-term efficacy studies). These studies documented that levomilnacipran is generally more effective than placebo for the treatment of MDD in the short-term, whereas no firm evidence exists on long-term efficacy for relapse prevention. Preliminary evidence suggests that levomilnacipran ER may be effective in improving not only depressive symptoms but also symptoms related to functioning (social life, work, and family life). Short-and longer-term studies found that the rate of withdrawal from levomilnacipran therapy due to adverse events was rather low. Moreover the drug appeared to be generally well tolerated. The most common adverse effects included nausea, hyperhidrosis, constipation, tachycardia, palpitations, erectile dysfunction and ejaculation disorder. As hypertension or orthostatic hypotension may occur in a few patients, the cardiovascular safety of levomilnacipran needs to be more extensively investigated especially on long-term treatment. Additional active comparator trials evaluating efficacy, tolerability and cost-effectiveness are required to better define the role of levomilnacipran ER in the treatment of MDD in relation to currently available antidepressants including other SNRIs.

Efficacy and safety of multiple doses of levomilnacipran extended-release for the treatment of major depressive disorder

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of levomilnacipran extended-release (ER) in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials were searched by electronic databases. Unpublished data were also searched by the relevant websites. Weighted mean difference (WMD) and risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated and pooled using fixed-effects model or random-effects model.

RESULTS

Five randomized placebo-controlled trials including 2,637 patients were analyzed. Compared with placebo, levomilnacipran ER had a greater reduction in the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score and Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) total score (MADRS: WMD -3.49 [95% CI -4.28, -2.70; P<0.00001]; SDS: WMD -2.41 [95% CI -3.05, -1.77; P<0.00001]). Significantly more patients in levomilnacipran ER achieved MADRS response rate (RR 1.35 [95% CI 1.23, 1.47; P<0.00001]) and MADRS remission rate (RR 1.30 [95% CI 1.06, 1.59; P=0.01]). In terms of safety, more patients discontinued due to adverse events (AEs) in levomilnacipran ER compared with placebo (RR 3.15 [95% CI 2.26, 4.39; P<0.00001]), but it was generally well tolerated in each eligible trial. The most common AEs were nausea, delay in ejaculation, erectile dysfunction, tachycardia, headache and increase in heart rate.

CONCLUSION

Levomilnacipran ER is a safe and effective short-term treatment for MDD (≤10 weeks). Long-term and head-to-head trials comparing levomilnacipran ER with other antidepressants are needed to confirm the conclusion.

The efficacy of levomilnacipran ER across symptoms of major depressive disorder: a post hoc analysis of 5 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

A post hoc analysis evaluated the effects of levomilnacipran ER on individual symptoms and symptom domains in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHODS

Data were pooled from 5 Phase III trials comprising 2598 patients. Effects on depression symptoms were analyzed based on change from baseline in individual Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) item scores. A1dditional evaluations included resolution of individual symptoms (defined as a MADRS item score ≤1 at end of treatment) and concurrent resolution of all 10 MADRS items, all MADRS6 subscale items, and all items included in different symptom clusters (Dysphoria, Retardation, Vegetative Symptoms, Anhedonia).

RESULTS

Significantly greater mean improvements were found on all MADRS items except Reduced Appetite with levomilnacipran ER treatment compared with placebo. Resolution of individual symptoms occurred more frequently with levomilnacipran ER than placebo for each MADRS item (all P<.05), with odds ratios (ORs) ranging from 1.26 to 1.75; resolution of all 10 items was also greater with levomilnacipran ER (OR=1.57; P=.0051). Significant results were found for the MADRS6 subscale (OR=1.73; P<.0001) and each symptom cluster (OR range, 1.39 [Vegetative Symptoms] to 1.84 [Retardation]; all clusters, P<.01).

CONCLUSION

Adult MDD patients treated with levomilnacipran ER improved across a range of depression symptoms and symptom domains.

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

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

Vortioxetine for major depressive disorder: An indirect comparison with duloxetine, escitalopram, levomilnacipran, sertraline, venlafaxine, and vilazodone, using number needed to treat, number needed to harm, and likelihood to be helped or harmed

BACKGROUND

Vortioxetine is approved for the treatment of major depressive disorder and differs from other antidepressants in terms of its pharmacodynamic profile. Given the limited number of head-to-head studies comparing vortioxetine with other antidepressants, indirect comparisons using effect sizes observed in other trials can be helpful to discern potential differences in clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Data sources were the clinical trial reports for the pivotal short-term double-blind trials for vortioxetine and from publicly available sources for the pivotal short-term double-blind trials for two commonly used generic serotonin specific reuptake inhibitor antidepressants (sertraline, escitalopram), two commonly used generic serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor antidepressants (venlafaxine, duloxetine), and two recently introduced branded antidepressants (vilazodone, levomilnacipran). Response was the efficacy outcome of interest, defined as a≥50% reduction from baseline on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale or Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. The tolerability outcome of interest was discontinuation because of an adverse event. Number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH) for these outcomes vs. placebo were calculated, as well as likelihood to be helped or harmed (LHH) to contrast efficacy vs. tolerability.

RESULTS

The analysis included 8 studies for duloxetine, 3 studies for escitalopram, 5 studies for levomilnacipran, 1 study for sertraline, 4 studies for venlafaxine, 2 studies for vilazodone, and 11 studies for vortioxetine. NNTs for response vs. placebo were 6 (95% CI 5-8), 7 (5-11), 10 (8-16), 6 (4-13), 6 (5-9), 8 (6-16), and 9 (7-11), respectively. NNHs for discontinuation because of an adverse event vs. placebo were 25 (17-51), 31 (19-92), 19 (14-27), 7 (5-12), 8 (7-11), 27 (15-104), and 43 (28-91), respectively. LHH values contrasting response vs. discontinuation because of an adverse event were 4.3, 4.6, 1.8, 1.2, 1.4, 3.3, and 5.1 respectively.

LIMITATIONS

Subjects were all participants in carefully designed and executed clinical trials and may not necessarily reflect patients in clinical settings who may have complex psychiatric and non-psychiatric comorbidities. The measured outcomes come from different studies and thus comparisons are indirect.

CONCLUSIONS

Vortioxetine demonstrates similar efficacy to that observed for duloxetine, escitalopram, levomilnacipran, sertraline, venlafaxine, and vilazodone, however overall tolerability as measured by discontinuation because of an adverse event differs. Vortioxetine is 5.1 times more likely to be associated with response than discontinuation because of an adverse event when compared to placebo.

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.

The effects of levomilnacipran ER in adult patients with first-episode, highly recurrent, or chronic MDD

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorder (MDD) can be challenging to manage due its variable and episodic nature. Post hoc analyses were conducted on five studies (NCT00969709, NCT01377194, NCT00969150, NCT01034462, EudraCT:2006-002404-34) to evaluate the efficacy of levomilnacipran extended-release (ER) in patients with different MDD episode histories.

METHODS

Adults with MDD were randomized to double-blind treatment with levomilnacipran ER (40-120mg/d) or placebo. Three subgroups were identified: first-episode (n=494); highly recurrent (≥3 major depressive episodes; n=1954); and chronic (current episode duration ≥2 years; n=218). Mean changes from baseline to end of study (Week 8 [US studies], Week 10 [non-US study]) in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD17), and Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) total scores were analyzed in each subgroup. MADRS response, defined as ≥50% total score improvement from baseline to Week 8/10, was also analyzed.

RESULTS

Least squares mean differences (LSMDs) between treatment groups indicated significantly greater improvements with levomilnacipran ER versus placebo in MADRS (first-episode, -2.5; highly recurrent, -3.0; chronic, -4.9; all P<.05) and HAMD17 (first-episode, -2.1; highly recurrent, -1.6; chronic, -2.6; all P<.05) total scores. LSMDs for SDS total score were statistically significant in the first-episode and highly recurrent MDD subgroups (both subgroups, -2.3; P<.01). MADRS response rate was significantly higher with levomilnacipran ER versus placebo in all three subgroups (first-episode, 44.5% versus 35.0%; highly recurrent, 44.3% versus 33.5%; 36.8% versus 22.0%; all P<.05).

LIMITATIONS

MDD subgroups were defined post hoc; none of the studies were prospectively designed to evaluate outcomes in these subgroups. Other limitations include lack of active comparators and variability of dose/duration due to data being pooled from multiple clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that levomilnacipran ER improves depression symptoms and functional impairment in adult patients with different histories of MDD episodes.

A review of antidepressant-induced urinary hesitancy: a focus on levomilnacipran ER including two case presentations(5633)

INTRODUCTION

Levomilnacipran ER was recently FDA approved as Fetzima® for the treatment of MDD. Urinary hesitancy can be an adverse event associated with levomilnacipran treatment.

AREAS COVERED

This manuscript details the longitudinal course of levomilnacipran-induced urinary hesitancy in 2 cases that were in a pivotal clinical trial, examining possible predisposing factors and treatment issues. This manuscript also reviews the literature comparing urinary hesitancy associated with levomilnacipran versus other antidepressants. Antidepressants that are potent norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors like levomilnacipran, may have increased rates of associated urinary hesitancy. The latter can cause significant discomfort and a compromised quality of life. Occasionally, it can progress to urinary retention necessitating an emergency medical intervention.

EXPERT OPINION

All patients being treated with antidepressants should be carefully monitored for this side effect. Discontinuation of treatment or reduction of the dose of antidepressant frequently relieves urinary hesitancy; alternatively, treatment with an alpha1A antagonist, e.g., tamsulosin may relieve antidepressant-induced urinary hesitancy within hours to days; such strategies allow for continued antidepressant treatment without urinary hesitancy recurring. Thus, with appropriate clinical care, the benefits using levomilnacipran outweigh its risks.

Problems in the Descriptions of the Psychiatric Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria in Publications of Antidepressant Efficacy Trials: A Qualitative Review and Recommendations for Improved Clarity

We recently conducted a comprehensive review of the psychiatric inclusion and exclusion criteria used in 170 placebo-controlled antidepressant efficacy trials (AETs) that were published between 1995 and 2014. In conducting this literature review, we identified a number of instances in which the descriptions of the inclusion/exclusion criteria were vague, redundant, or difficult to interpret. In the present article, we describe nine problems we encountered in our literature review. We recommend that future publications follow the examples found in a few studies in which the inclusion/exclusion criteria are clearly defined and listed in a table.

Effects of levomilnacipran ER on fatigue symptoms associated with major depressive disorder

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of levomilnacipran extended-release (ER) on depression-related fatigue in adults with major depressive disorder. Post-hoc analyses of five phase III trials were carried out, with evaluation of fatigue symptoms based on score changes in four items: Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) item 7 (lassitude), and 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD17) items 7 (work/activities), 8 (retardation), and 13 (somatic symptoms). Symptom remission was analyzed on the basis of score shifts from baseline to end of treatment: MADRS item 7 and HAMD17 item 7 (from ≥2 to ≤1); HAMD17 items 8 and 13 (from ≥1 to 0). The mean change in MADRS total score was analyzed in patients with low and high fatigue (MADRS item 7 baseline score <4 and ≥4, respectively). Patients receiving levomilnacipran ER had significantly greater mean improvements and symptom remission (no/minimal residual fatigue) on all fatigue-related items: lassitude (35 vs. 28%), work/activities (43 vs. 35%), retardation (46 vs. 39%), somatic symptoms (26 vs. 18%; all Ps<0.01 versus placebo). The mean change in MADRS total score was significantly greater with levomilnacipran ER versus placebo in both low (least squares mean difference=-2.8, P=0.0018) and high (least squares mean difference=-3.1, P<0.0001) fatigue subgroups. Levomilnacipran ER treatment was effective in reducing depression-related fatigue in adult patients with major depressive disorder and was associated with remission of fatigue symptoms.

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.

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.

Effect of renal impairment on the pharmacokinetics of levomilnacipran following a single oral dose of levomilnacipran extended-release capsule in humans

Purpose

Levomilnacipran extended-release (ER) is indicated for treatment of major depressive disorder in adults. We evaluated the pharmacokinetic and safety profile of levomilnacipran ER in individuals with impaired renal function.

Methods

A total of 32 individuals participated in four groups (eight in each group) with normal, mild, moderately, or severely impaired renal function. Each participant received one dose of levomilnacipran ER 40 mg. Blood and urine were assayed using liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. Results between normal and renally impaired groups were compared using analysis of variance. Safety measures included adverse events, laboratory evaluations, vital signs, suicidality, and electrocardiograms.

Results

Following administration of levomilnacipran, mean (standard deviation) maximum plasma concentration in participants with normal renal function, and mild, moderate, or severe renal impairment was 83.9 (21.0), 81.8 (23.4), 98.7 (18.1), and 122.1 (35.1) (ng/mL), respectively; area under the curve from time zero to infinity was 2,101.0 (516.9), 2,587.8 (649.9), 4,016.4 (995.4), and 5,900.8 (1,799.3) (h·ng/mL), respectively; terminal elimination half-life was 13.5 (2.8), 17.3 (3.5), 19.1 (4.6), and 27.7 (7.4) (hours), respectively; and renal clearance was 175.9 mL/min, 114.7 mL/min, 69.9 mL/min, and 28.6 mL/min, respectively. Levomilnacipran ER was generally well tolerated with no safety issues of concern identified.

Conclusion

Renal impairment was associated with increased plasma levels of levomilnacipran and prolonged half-life. No dose adjustment is required for individuals with mild renal impairment; the recommended maximum daily maintenance dose of levomilnacipran ER should not exceed 80 mg for individuals with moderate renal impairment and 40 mg for individuals with severe renal impairment.

Disposition and metabolism of [14C]-levomilnacipran, a serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, in humans, monkeys, and rats

Levomilnacipran is approved in the US for the treatment of major depressive disorder in adults. We characterized the metabolic profile of levomilnacipran in humans, monkeys, and rats after oral administration of [¹⁴C]-levomilnacipran. In vitro binding of levomilnacipran to human plasma proteins was also studied. Unchanged levomilnacipran was the major circulating compound after dosing in all species. Within 12 hours of dosing in humans, levomilnacipran accounted for 52.9% of total plasma radioactivity; the circulating metabolites N-desethyl levomilnacipran N-carbamoyl glucuronide, N-desethyl levomilnacipran, and levomilnacipran N-carbamoyl glucuronide accounted for 11.3%, 7.5%, and 5.6%, respectively. Similar results were seen in monkeys. N-Desethyl levomilnacipran and p-hydroxy levomilnacipran were the main circulating metabolites in rats. Mass balance results indicated that renal excretion was the major route of elimination with 58.4%, 35.5%, and 40.2% of total radioactivity being excreted as unchanged levomilnacipran in humans, monkeys, and rats, respectively. N-Desethyl levomilnacipran was detected in human, monkey, and rat urine (18.2%, 12.4%, and 7.9% of administered dose, respectively). Human and monkey urine contained measurable quantities of levomilnacipran glucuronide (3.8% and 4.1% of administered dose, respectively) and N-desethyl levomilnacipran glucuronide (3.2% and 2.3% of administered dose, respectively); these metabolites were not detected in rat urine. The metabolites p-hydroxy levomilnacipran and p-hydroxy levomilnacipran glucuronide were detected in human urine (≤1.2% of administered dose), and p-hydroxy levomilnacipran glucuronide was found in rat urine (4% of administered dose). None of the metabolites were pharmacologically active. Levomilnacipran was widely distributed with low plasma protein binding (22%).

Levomilnacipran Extended-Release Treatment in Patients With Major Depressive Disorder: Improvements in Functional Impairment Categories

OBJECTIVE

In this post hoc analysis, improvement in functional impairment in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) treated with levomilnacipran extended release (ER) was evaluated by assessing shifts from more severe to less severe functional impairment categories on individual Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) subscales.

METHOD

SDS data were pooled from 5 phase II/III studies conducted between December 2006 and March 2012 of levomilnacipran ER versus placebo in adult patients with MDD (DSM-IV-TR criteria). Proportions of patients shifting from moderate-extreme baseline impairment (score ≥ 4) to mild-no impairment (score ≤ 3) at end of treatment were assessed for each SDS subscale. Proportions of patients shifting from marked-extreme (score ≥ 7) baseline impairment to moderate-no (score ≤ 6) or mild-no impairment (score ≤ 3) at end of treatment, and shifts in which patients worsened from moderate-no to marked-extreme impairment, were also evaluated.

RESULTS

A significantly higher proportion of patients treated with levomilnacipran ER than placebo-treated patients improved from more severe categories of functional impairment at baseline to less severe impairment categories across all SDS subscales: work/school, social life, and family life/home responsibilities (P < .01). Depending on the SDS subscale, 48%-55% of levomilnacipran ER-treated patients with moderate-extreme impairment at baseline improved to mild or no impairment, compared with no more than 40% of placebo patients on any subscale. Almost half (42%-47%) of levomilnacipran ER-treated patients versus only about one-third (29%-34%) of placebo patients improved from marked-extreme to mild or no impairment across functional domains.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that functional improvement was observed across the SDS functional domains. To our knowledge, this is the first such categorical analysis of functional improvement, as measured by the SDS, for an antidepressant.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT00969709, NCT01377194, NCT00969150, and NCT01034462 and EudraCT identifier: 2006-002404-34.

Efficacy of levomilnacipran extended-release in major depressive disorder: pooled analysis of 5 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVE

Post hoc analyses were conducted to evaluate the efficacy of levomilnacipran extended-release (ER) in subgroups of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHODS

Data were pooled from 5 completed Phase II/III studies. Patients were categorized by sex, age, MDD duration, recurrence of MDD, current episode duration, number of prior episodes, and baseline Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score. Efficacy was evaluated by MADRS least squares (LS) mean change from baseline, response (MADRS improvement ≥50%), and remission (MADRS ≤10).

RESULTS

In the pooled population, treatment with levomilnacipran ER versus placebo resulted in greater improvement in MADRS score (-15.8 versus -12.9; LS mean difference, -2.9; P < .001) and higher response rates (44.7% versus 34.5%; P < .001). Comparable treatment effects were found in most subgroups. Remission rates in the overall population were higher for levomilnacipran ER versus placebo (27.7% versus 21.5%; P < .05); notably high remission rates were seen in patients with baseline MADRS score < 30 (48.8% versus 28.9%; P < .001). Discussion Clinically meaningful improvements in depressive symptoms were found across subgroups, including statistically significant outcomes for both response and remission.

CONCLUSION

Levomilnacipran ER was efficacious across a wide range of MDD patients, including men and women, ages 18-78, with varying histories and symptom severity.

Levomilnacipran and vortioxetine: Review of new pharmacotherapies for major depressive disorder

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a common psychiatric disorder with an estimated lifetime prevalence rate in the range of 13% to 16% in the United States population. Patients with MDD often have symptoms such as depressed mood, loss of interest or pleasure in usual activities, changes in eating or sleeping patterns, fatigue, difficulty concentrating and thoughts of suicide. Although many pharmacotherapy treatment options are available for MDD, antidepressants can often cause adverse effects that could affect adherence to the medication. Additionally, it is estimated that MDD is unremitting in 15% of patients and 35% can have recurrent episodes. Given the high rate of recurrence and the adverse effects associated with existing medications, new treatment options for depression are needed. Both levomilnacipran and vortioxetine are new antidepressants that were approved by the food and drug administration in 2013 for the treatment of MDD in adults. Levomilnacipran is a serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor that was effective in several short term studies and sustained efficacy and tolerability was demonstrated in a 48-wk extension study. Vortioxetine is a multi-modal antidepressant and it is thought to work via inhibition of the serotonin (5-HT) transporter, 5-HT_3A, 5-HT₇ and 5-HT_1D antagonist, a 5-HT_1B partial agonist, and a 5-HT_1A agonist. Vortioxetine was effective in the treatment of MDD in both short-term trials as well as in the prevention of relapse in a 24-36 wk trial. Sustained efficacy and tolerability was demonstrated in several long-term open-label trials. Further studies comparing levomilnacipran and vortioxetine to other currently available antidepressants are needed to establish its place in therapy.

Levomilnacipran for the treatment of major depressive disorder: a review

Levomilnacipran (LVM, Fetzima(®)) was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of major depressive disorder. It is a unique dual neurotransmitter reuptake inhibitor. In contrast with other selective serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, including duloxetine, venlafaxine, and desvenlafaxine, it has greater selectivity for inhibiting norepinephrine reuptake than serotonin reuptake. Our review focuses on the efficacy, safety, and tolerability data for five double-blind, placebo-controlled, short-term studies and two long-term studies. In the short-term studies, LVM was found to be more effective than placebo in reducing depression (Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale) scores as well as improving functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) scores. Long-term studies found LVM to be similarly effective but in the only placebo-controlled long-term study, LVM was not significantly superior to placebo. LVM is fairly well tolerated, with the most common adverse events being nausea, headache, dry mouth, hyperhidrosis, and constipation. Discontinuation rates were mildly increased in those being treated with LVM (9%) versus placebo (3%). Adverse events were not dose-related except for urinary hesitancy and erectile dysfunction. LVM was weight neutral, was not toxic to the liver, and did not cause clinically significant QTc prolongation. Consistent with being a predominant potentiator of norepinephrine, pulse and blood pressure were significantly elevated by LVM but rarely induced tachycardia or hypertension. LVM is a relatively safe alternative antidepressant treatment with minimal drug-drug interactions. It is the only antidepressant that has in its labeling that it is not only effective in improving depression but also effective in improving impaired functioning. Whether this important effect on functioning is unique to LVM must be researched. In addition, whether LVM might be effective in norepinephrine-deficit depression, refractory depression, atypical depression, or seasonal depression is yet to be evaluated. Ultimately, head-to-head studies comparing LVM with other antidepressants will determine the place of LM in antidepressant treatment.

Evaluation of functional health and well-being in patients receiving levomilnacipran ER for the treatment of major depressive disorder

INTRODUCTION

Levomilnacipran extended-release (ER) is an FDA-approved serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) for treating major depressive disorder (MDD). SF-36v2 Health Survey outcomes from a Phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (NCT00969709) were evaluated.

METHODS

Prospective and post hoc analyses of SF-36 Mental and Physical Component Summaries (MCS, PCS), and individual domains compared pooled levomilnacipran ER doses (40, 80, 120 mg/day) with placebo. Patients (18-65 years) had MDD, depressive episode ≥ 8 weeks, and Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score ≥ 30. SF-36 score changes from baseline to Week 8 were analyzed using ANCOVA and the observed cases approach (Intent-to-Treat [ITT] Population). Minimally important differences (MID) evaluated clinical relevance.

RESULTS

Baseline MCS scores reflected marked mental deficits in the ITT Population (levomilnacipran ER = 529; placebo = 175). MCS change at Week 8 was significantly greater for levomilnacipran ER than placebo (LSMD [SE] = 4.8 [1.5]; P = 0.0011); MID exceeded the 3-point threshold. Baseline PCS scores suggested minimal physical deficits; no between-group difference at Week 8 was noted. LSMD was nominally statistically significant (P < 0.05) for levomilnacipran ER versus placebo in 5 domains (General Health [2.44; P = 0.0010], Vitality [2.48; P = 0.0307], Social Functioning [3.25; P = 0.0097], Role-Emotional [3.38; P = 0.0078], Mental Health [4.34; P = 0.0005]); changes in Vitality, Social Functioning, and Mental Health exceeded MID.

LIMITATIONS

The trial was limited by short duration; analyses were post hoc and adjustments were not made for multiplicity.

CONCLUSION

Statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement on the MCS and several individual domains suggest overall and dimensional improvement in health-related functioning for patients with MDD treated with levomilnacipran ER versus placebo.

Levomilnacipran extended-release: a review of its use in adult patients with major depressive disorder

Oral levomilnacipran extended-release (ER) [Fetzima™], the more active enantiomer of milnacipran, is the most recent serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor to be approved in the USA for the treatment of adults with major depressive disorder (MDD). MDD is characterized by depression and impairment of cognitive, social and work functioning. Once-daily levomilnacipran ER 40-120 mg was an effective and generally well-tolerated treatment in adults with MDD participating in 8-week phase III trials and a 1-year extension study. After 8 weeks, levomilnacipran ER treatment was associated with significantly greater and clinically meaningful improvements in depressive symptoms than placebo treatment and, in general, higher Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale responder rates and greater improvements in functional outcomes than placebo. The efficacy of levomilnacipran ER was maintained during the extension study, with no new safety signals detected; ongoing postmarketing evidence should more fully define the long-term safety of levomilnacipran ER. In the absence of head-to-head clinical trials, the relative position of levomilnacipran ER to that of other antidepressants remains to be determined. In the meantime, it is a useful addition to pharmacological options for the treatment of adult patients with MDD. This article summarizes the clinical use of oral levomilnacipran ER in adults with MDD, and briefly reviews the pharmacological properties of levomilnacipran.

A review of the clinical efficacy, safety and tolerability of the antidepressants vilazodone, levomilnacipran and vortioxetine

INTRODUCTION

As a leading cause of disability, major depressive disorder (MDD) is characterized by reduced quality of life and altered functioning. Current pharmaceutical treatment options are limited in their success by modest effects and adverse events that often lead to discontinuation. One current trend in antidepressant development is to combine inhibition of the serotonin transporter with other pharmacological targets, including the norepinephrine transporter or different serotonin receptors.

AREAS COVERED

In a span of < 3 years, the FDA approved three new antidepressants for the treatment of MDD: vilazodone in January 2011, levomilnacipran in July 2013 and vortioxetine in September 2013. This article reviews the efficacy, safety and tolerability of these three drugs mainly from the Phase III trial data.

EXPERT OPINION

All three drugs are effective in the treatment of MDD, but data comparing them to other antidepressants is currently lacking. Vilazodone was proposed to produce a more rapid onset and have fewer sexual side effects but neither effect has been conclusively shown. Levomilnacipran appears to be effective in improving functional impairment, including both social and work functioning. Vortioxetine is currently the only drug of the three with proven efficacy in elderly patients. It also appears to have cognitive enhancing properties which are largely independent of improved depressive symptoms. Overall, these drugs represent a promising step forward in antidepressant drug development.

Efficacy of levomilnacipran extended-release in improving functional impairment associated with major depressive disorder: pooled analyses of five double-blind, placebo-controlled trials

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is characterized by increased rates of impaired function and disability. During antidepressant treatment, functional improvement often lags behind symptomatic resolution, and residual impairment is associated with an increased risk for relapse. When evaluating MDD treatments, it is important to assess not only depressive symptoms but also functional outcomes. In this post-hoc analysis, data from five studies were pooled to examine the effect of levomilnacipran extended-release (ER) versus placebo on functional impairment as measured using the Sheehan Disability Scale. The mean change in the Sheehan Disability Scale total score was significantly greater for levomilnacipran ER versus placebo in the overall pooled population, for both sexes, and across all ages. Statistically significantly higher rates of functional response, functional remission, combined (functional and symptomatic) response, and combined remission were achieved with levomilnacipran ER compared with placebo in the pooled population, as well as in the male, female, younger, and middle-aged population subgroups. The levomilnacipran ER group also showed significantly improved functional outcomes versus placebo regardless of baseline depression severity. Similarly, functional impairment was significantly improved and higher functional and combined response and remission rates were achieved with levomilnacipran ER compared with placebo regardless of the baseline level of functional impairment.