Carl Gommoll

Double-blind comparison of escitalopram and duloxetine in the acute treatment of major depressive disorder.

AbstractBackground and objective: Escitalopram is the most selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressant; in contrast, duloxetine inhibits both serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake. Double-blind comparison studies may help guide treatment decisions by revealing the relative benefits of different therapeutic approaches. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of escitalopram versus duloxetine in the acute treatment of patients with moderate to severe major depressive disorder. Methods: A 1-week, single-blind, placebo lead-in period followed by an 8-week, randomised, double-blind, multicentre, parallel-group comparison was conducted from 20 April 2005 to 10 March 2006 in independent psychiatric research facilities with principal investigators who were board certified in psychiatry. A total of 278 outpatients of 382 patients screened with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edition)-diagnosed major depressive disorder (Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] total score ≥26) were randomised to the two treatment groups. Eight patients received no medication and were excluded from the safety group. Patients were treated with either escitalopram 10–20 mg/day (fixed at 10 mg/day for the first 4 weeks) or duloxetine 60 mg/day. The primary efficacy variable was change from baseline at week 8 in MADRS total score using the last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach. Efficacy, safety and tolerability measures were prospectively defined in the statistical analysis plan prior to study initiation unless otherwise specifically noted as conducted post hoc.Results: A significantly greater proportion of escitalopram-treated patients completed the 8-week study compared with duloxetine-treated patients (87% vs 69%, respectively; p < 0.01). Mean baseline MADRS total scores were 31.0 for the escitalopram group and 31.6 for the duloxetine group. At week 8, escitalopram treatment resulted in significantly greater improvement compared with duloxetine on the prospectively defined primary efficacy endpoint of mean change from baseline in MADRS total score using the LOCF approach (least-squares mean difference [LSMD] −2.42; 95% CI −4.73, −0.11; p < 0.05). There was no difference between treatment groups in the observed cases (OC) analysis (LSMD −0.32; 95% CI −2.71, 2.07; p = 0.79). Significantly fewer escitalopram-treated patients discontinued because of adverse events compared with duloxetine (2% vs 13%, respectively; p < 0.01). Conclusion: These findings suggest that escitalopram is better tolerated and at least as effective as the serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor duloxetine in the treatment of major depressive disorder.

A phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled, flexible-dose study of levomilnacipran extended-release in patients with major depressive disorder.

Abstract Levomilnacipran (1S, 2R-milnacipran) is a potent and selective serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor; an extended-release (ER) formulation allows for once-daily dosing. This phase III study (NCT01034462) evaluated the efficacy, the safety, and the tolerability of 40 to 120 mg/d of levomilnacipran ER versus placebo in the treatment of patients (18-80 y) with major depressive disorder. This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, flexible-dose study comprised a 1-week single-blind, placebo run-in period; an 8-week double-blind treatment; and a 2-week double-blind down-taper period. The primary efficacy parameter was total score change from baseline to week 8 on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS); the secondary efficacy was the Sheehan Disability Scale. Analysis was performed using the mixed-effects model for repeated measures on a modified intent-to-treat population. A total of 434 patients received at least 1 dose of double-blind treatment (safety population); 429 patients also had 1 or more postbaseline MADRS assessments (modified intent-to-treat population). The least squares mean differences and 95% confidence interval were statistically significant in favor of levomilnacipran ER versus placebo for the MADRS total score (−3.095 [−5.256, −0.935]; P = 0.0051) and the SDS total score (−2.632 [−4.193, −1.070]; P = 0.0010) change from baseline to week 8. Adverse events were reported in 61.8% of the placebo patients and in 81.6% of the levomilnacipran ER patients. Frequently reported adverse events (≥5% in levomilnacipran ER and twice the rate of placebo) were nausea, dizziness, constipation, tachycardia, urinary hesitation, hyperhidrosis, insomnia, vomiting, hypertension, and ejaculation disorder. In conclusion, there was a statistically significant difference in the score change from baseline to week 8 between levomilnacipran ER and placebo on several depression rating scales, reflecting symptomatic and functional improvement; treatment was generally well tolerated.

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

BACKGROUND Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a global health concern. This study examined the efficacy, safety and tolerability of an extended-release (ER) formulation of levomilnacipran, an antidepressant approved for the treatment of MDD in adults. METHODS This 10-week (1-week placebo run-in period, 8-week double-blind treatment, 1-week down-taper), multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, fixed-dose study was conducted between June 2011 and March 2012. Adult outpatients (age 18-75 yr) with MDD were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to placebo or to levomilnacipran ER 40 mg/day or 80 mg/day. For primary efficacy, we analyzed the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) change from baseline to week 8 using a mixed-effects model for repeated-measures approach on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. For secondary efficacy, we used the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), and for safety, we examined adverse events and laboratory, vital sign/physical and electrocardiography findings. RESULTS The ITT population consisted of 185 patients in the placebo group, 185 in the levomilnacipran ER 40 mg/day group and 187 in the levomilnacipran ER 80 mg/day group. Study completion rates were similar among the groups (76%-83%). On MADRS change from baseline the least squares mean difference (LSMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) versus placebo was significant for levomilnacipran ER 40 mg/day (-3.3 [-5.5 to -1.1], p = 0.003) and 80 mg/day (-3.1, [-5.3 to -1.0], p = 0.004). On SDS change from baseline the LSMD (and 95% CI) versus placebo was also significant for levomilnacipran ER 40 mg/day (-1.8, 95% [-3.6 to 0], p = 0.046) and 80 mg/day (-2.7 [-4.5 to -0.9], p = 0.003). More patients in the levomilnacipran ER than the placebo group prematurely exited the study owing to adverse events; common adverse events (≥ 5% and ≥ double the rate of placebo) were nausea, dry mouth, increased heart rate, constipation, dizziness, hyperhidrosis, urinary hesitation and erectile dysfunction. LIMITATIONS Limitations to our study included short treatment duration and lack of an active control arm. CONCLUSION Levomilnacipran ER at doses of 40 mg/day and 80 mg/day demonstrated efficacy on symptomatic and functional measures of MDD and was generally well tolerated in this patient population. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NCT01377194.

Efficacy and safety of vilazodone 20 and 40 mg in major depressive disorder: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Vilazodone is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and 5-HT1A partial agonist approved for major depressive disorder (MDD) treatment in adults. This was a 10-week, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled and active-controlled, fixed-dose trial (NCT01473381). Adult patients with MDD (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed., text revision criteria) were randomized 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 to vilazodone 20 or 40 mg/day, citalopram 40 mg/day, or placebo. Primary efficacy: Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS); secondary efficacy: Clinical Global Impressions-Severity and sustained response (MADRS total score⩽12 for at least the last two consecutive double-blind visits). The intent-to-treat population comprised 1133 patients, (placebo=281; vilazodone 20 mg/day=288; vilazodone 40 mg/day=284; citalopram=280). MADRS and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity score change from baseline to week 10 was significantly greater for vilazodone 20 mg/day, vilazodone 40 mg/day, and citalopram versus placebo. Sustained response rates were numerically higher, but not significantly different, in all active treatment groups versus placebo. The most common adverse events (≥5% of vilazodone patients, twice the rate of placebo) were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting (vilazodone 40 mg/day only), and insomnia. Improved sexual function (Changes in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire scores) was seen in all groups; between-group differences were not significant. Vilazodone 20 and 40 mg/day demonstrated efficacy and tolerability in the treatment of MDD.

Efficacy and safety of vilazodone in major depressive disorder: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION Vilazodone is a potent serotonin (5-HT) reuptake inhibitor and 5-HT₁A receptor partial agonist approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults. This study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of vilazodone in the treatment of MDD. METHOD This 8-week, randomized (1:1), double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, fixed-dose study conducted from January 2012 to February 2013 compared vilazodone 40 mg/d with placebo in outpatients with DSM-IV-TR-diagnosed MDD. The primary efficacy measure was Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score change from baseline to week 8 analyzed by a mixed-effects model for repeated measures on the intent-to-treat population (placebo = 252, vilazodone = 253). Secondary efficacy outcomes were Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) Scale score change from baseline and MADRS sustained response rate (total score ≤ 12 for at least the last 2 consecutive double-blind visits). RESULTS Approximately 83% of patients completed the study. Least squares mean differences (95% CI) were statistically significant for vilazodone versus placebo on MADRS (-5.117 [-6.886 to -3.347], P < .00001) and CGI-S (-0.622 [-0.845 to -0.399], P < .00001) change from baseline; statistically significant improvements versus placebo occurred at week 2 and persisted for the study duration. The MADRS sustained response rate was 17% for placebo and 27% for vilazodone (P < .01). Patients taking vilazodone versus placebo had higher rates of diarrhea and nausea; most incidences were mild in severity. Weight increase and sexual dysfunction adverse events were low in both groups. CONCLUSIONS A large and significant treatment effect on the MADRS and statistically significant improvement on the CGI-S demonstrated meaningful depressive symptom improvements. Vilazodone was generally well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01473394.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of flexible doses of levomilnacipran ER (40–120 mg/day) in patients with major depressive disorder

Abstract Objective: Levomilnacipran ER is a potent and selective serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) approved for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). Efficacy and safety have been evaluated in five Phase II/III studies, four of which met the pre-specified primary efficacy outcome. Results of the negative trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00969150) are reported here. Methods: A Phase III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial comparing flexible-dose levomilnacipran ER 40–120 mg/day with placebo was conducted in outpatients with MDD. Patients met the DSM-IV-TR criteria for MDD, had a current episode of depression of at least 4 weeks’ duration, and a Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score ≥30. The study comprised a 1-week, single-blind, placebo lead-in, 8-week double-blind treatment, and a 2-week down-taper. The primary and secondary efficacy measures were change from baseline to Week 8 in MADRS and Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) total scores, respectively, analyzed using a mixed-effects model for repeated measures approach. Safety outcomes included adverse events (AEs), laboratory and vital sign measures, the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale, and the Arizona Sexual Experiences Scale (ASEX). Results: Three hundred and fifty-five patients received the study drug and had ≥1 post-baseline MADRS total score assessment (ITT Population); 81.9% of placebo and 77.1% of levomilnacipran ER patients completed the study. For levomilnacipran ER vs placebo, MADRS (−15.7 vs −14.2) and SDS (−8.8 vs −8.2) total score improvements, and rates of MADRS response (38.5% vs 34.8%) and remission (25.3% vs 23.8%) were numerically greater but differences were not statistically significant. Levomilnacipran ER was generally well tolerated. More levomilnacipran ER patients vs placebo reported AEs; the most common AEs for levomilnacipran ER were nausea (17%) and headache (16%). Mean changes in most safety measures were small and similar between groups. There were no meaningful differences in total ASEX scores between groups. Limitations: Short duration of treatment, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and lack of an active comparator. Conclusion: Numerical improvements for levomilnacipran ER vs placebo were detected in this study, but the differences were not statistically significant; levomilnacipran ER was generally well tolerated.

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.

Sexual dysfunction during treatment of major depressive disorder with vilazodone, citalopram, or placebo: results from a phase IV clinical trial

Sexual dysfunction commonly occurs with major depressive disorder (MDD). Vilazodone, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and 5-HT1A receptor partial agonist antidepressant approved for the treatment of MDD in adults, was evaluated to determine its effects on sexual function. The primary study was a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial comparing vilazodone 20 and 40 mg/day with placebo; citalopram 40 mg/day was an active control (NCT01473381; http://www.clinicaltrials.gov). Post-hoc analyses evaluated change from baseline to week 10 on the Changes in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ); no inferential statistics were performed. CSFQ scores increased for women [1.2 (citalopram) to 3.0 (vilazodone 40 mg)] and men [1.2 (vilazodone 40 mg) to 3.5 (placebo)] in all treatment groups. Greater changes in CSFQ scores were seen in responders [women: 2.33 (citalopram) to 5.06 (vilazodone 40 mg); men: 2.26 (vilazodone 40 mg) to 4.35 (placebo)] versus nonresponders. CSFQ change from baseline was small for patients with normal baseline sexual function; in patients with baseline sexual dysfunction, CSFQ scores improved across groups [women: 2.35 (citalopram) to 4.52 (vilazodone 40 mg); men 2.83 (vilazodone 40 mg) to 6.43 (placebo)]. Across treatment groups, baseline sexual function improved in women and men, MDD responders, and patients with baseline sexual dysfunction.

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.

Vilazodone in patients with generalized anxiety disorder: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, flexible-dose study

Vilazodone is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and a 5-HT1A receptor partial agonist that is approved for treatment of major depressive disorder in adults in the USA and Mexico. The efficacy, safety, and tolerability of vilazodone for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) were investigated in a clinical trial (NCT01766401 ClinicalTrials.gov). Participants (18–70 years, inclusive) who met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed., text revision, criteria for GAD were randomized (1 : 1) to placebo or flexible-dose vilazodone (20–40 mg/day) for 8 weeks of double-blind treatment. Primary and secondary efficacy parameters were changes from baseline to week 8 in Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety and Sheehan Disability Scale total scores, respectively. Analysis was based on a mixed-effects model for repeated measures approach on the intent-to-treat population. The intent-to-treat population comprised 395 patients (placebo=197, vilazodone=198); 77% completed the study. The least squares mean difference in change from baseline to week 8 in the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety total score was statistically significant for vilazodone versus placebo [−1.50 (−2.96, −0.04), P=0.0438]. The mean change from baseline to week 8 in the Sheehan Disability Scale total score for vilazodone versus placebo was not statistically significant. Adverse events were reported in 60% of placebo-treated and 83% of vilazodone-treated patients. This was a positive clinical trial of 20–40 mg/day vilazodone versus placebo in the treatment of GAD.