Marianne Dragheim

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, active reference study of Lu AA21004 in patients with major depressive disorder

The efficacy, safety, and tolerability of Lu AA21004 vs. placebo using venlafaxine XR as active reference in patients with DSM-IV-TR major depressive disorder (MDD) were evaluated. Lu AA21004 is a novel antidepressant that is a 5-HT3 and 5-HT7 receptor antagonist, 5-HT1A receptor agonist, 5-HT1B receptor partial agonist and inhibitor of the 5-HT transporter in recombinant cell lines. In this 6-wk, multi-site study, 429 patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to 5 or 10 mg Lu AA21004, placebo or 225 mg venlafaxine XR. All patients had a baseline Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score ⩾30. The primary efficacy analysis was based on the MADRS total score adjusting for multiplicity using a hierarchical testing procedure starting with the highest dose vs. placebo. Lu AA21004 was statistically significantly superior to placebo (n=105) in mean change from baseline in MADRS total score at week 6 (p<0.0001, last observation carried forward), with a mean treatment difference vs. placebo of 5.9 (5 mg, n=108), and 5.7 (10 mg, n=100) points. Venlafaxine XR (n=112) was also significantly superior to placebo at week 6 (p<0.0001). In total, 30 patients withdrew due to adverse events (AEs) – placebo: four (4%); 5 mg Lu AA21004: three (3%); 10 mg Lu AA21004: seven (7%); and venlafaxine: 16 (14%). The most common AEs were nausea, headache, hyperhidrosis, and dry mouth. No clinically relevant changes over time were seen in the clinical laboratory results, vital signs, weight, or ECG parameters. In this study, treatment with 5 mg and 10 mg Lu AA21004 for 6 wk was efficacious and well tolerated in patients with MDD.

A meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials of vortioxetine for the treatment of major depressive disorder in adults

The efficacy and safety of vortioxetine, an antidepressant approved for the treatment of adults with major depressive disorder (MDD), was studied in 11 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of 6/8 weeks׳ treatment duration. An aggregated study-level meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the magnitude and dose-relationship of the clinical effect of approved doses of vortioxetine (5-20mg/day). The primary outcome measure was change from baseline to endpoint in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. Differences from placebo were analyzed using mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) analysis, with a sensitivity analysis also conducted using last observation carried forward. Secondary outcomes included MADRS single-item scores, response rate (≥50% reduction in baseline MADRS), remission rate (MADRS ≤10), and Clinical Global Impressions scores. Across the 11 studies, 1824 patients were treated with placebo and 3304 with vortioxetine (5mg/day: n=1001; 10mg/day: n=1042; 15mg/day: n=449; 20mg/day: n=812). The MMRM meta-analysis demonstrated that vortioxetine 5, 10, and 20mg/day were associated with significant reductions in MADRS total score (Δ-2.27, Δ-3.57, and Δ-4.57, respectively; p<0.01) versus placebo. The effects of 15mg/day (Δ-2.60; p=0.105) were not significantly different from placebo. Vortioxetine 10 and 20mg/day were associated with significant reductions in 9 of 10 MADRS single-item scores. Vortioxetine treatment was also associated with significantly higher rates of response and remission and with significant improvements in other depression-related scores versus placebo. This meta-analysis of vortioxetine (5-20mg/day) in adults with MDD supports the efficacy demonstrated in the individual studies, with treatment effect increasing with dose.

Treatment-emergent sexual dysfunction in randomized trials of vortioxetine for major depressive disorder or generalized anxiety disorder: a pooled analysis

OBJECTIVE Antidepressants are frequently associated with treatment-emergent sexual dysfunction (TESD). Vortioxetine, which was approved for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), has a receptor profile that suggests limited impact on sexual functioning. METHODS Arizona Sexual Experiences Scale (ASEX) patient-level data were pooled from 7 short-term vortioxetine trials (6 in MDD, 1 in generalized anxiety disorder) and analyzed for incidence of TESD at any post-baseline visit in patients without sexual dysfunction at baseline (defined as ASEX total score ≥19; individual ASEX item score ≥5; or a score ≥4 on any 3 ASEX items). The primary objective was to confirm the non-inferiority of vortioxetine 5-20 mg/day to placebo on the incidence of TESD. Comparisons were based on the common risk difference (95% confidence interval). Additional analyses compared vortioxetine to duloxetine and duloxetine to placebo. A sensitivity analysis, defined as TESD at 2 consecutive post-baseline visits, was conducted. RESULTS TESD incidence, relative to placebo, generally increased with vortioxetine dose with vortioxetine 5 mg non-inferior to placebo. Vortioxetine 10, 15, and 20 mg did not meet the non-inferiority criterion, but no dose had a significantly higher risk of developing TESD versus placebo. Changes in ASEX individual item scores supported the similarity of vortioxetine doses to placebo. Significantly higher TESD risk occurred with duloxetine 60 mg/day versus placebo and versus vortioxetine 5 or 10 mg. The sensitivity analysis was generally consistent with the primary analysis. Rates of spontaneously reported sexual adverse events were low. CONCLUSIONS Vortioxetine was associated with rates of TESD that were not significantly different from placebo in short-term clinical trials.

Efficacy and tolerability of vortioxetine versus agomelatine, categorized by previous treatment, in patients with major depressive disorder switched after an inadequate response

This study aimed to evaluate if efficacy and tolerability of switching to vortioxetine is independent of previous SSRI or SNRI treatment in patients who had been inadequately treated for their current major depressive episode. Patients from a double-blind, 12-week comparator study were randomized (1:1) to vortioxetine (10-20 mg/day) or agomelatine (25-50 mg/day). The pre-defined primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to week 8 in MADRS total score analyzed by MMRM. An ANCOVA-LOCF was conducted as a sensitivity analysis. These analyses were repeated in subgroups according to previous antidepressant treatment. In the overall population, vortioxetine (n = 252) was significantly superior to agomelatine (n = 241) by -2.2 MADRS points (p < 0.01) at week 8. ∼77% (n = 189/vortioxetine, n = 188/agomelatine) were previously treated with an SSRI (citalopram, escitalopram, paroxetine, sertraline) and ∼23% (n = 62/vortioxetine, n = 52/agomelatine) with an SNRI (duloxetine, venlafaxine). Baseline characteristics were similar in all subgroups. Treatment differences (MMRM) in MADRS total score were -2.6 and -2.3 (n = 164/vortioxetine, n = 150/agomelatine) (p < 0.01) for patients switching from an SSRI and -1.8 and -1.5 (n = 56/vortioxetine, n = 40/agomelatine) (p > 0.05) from an SNRI at weeks 8 and 12, respectively; non-significant improvements were seen for each of the 6 previous antidepressants. Improvements in HAM-A, CGI-I, and EQ-5D scales were significant for the SSRI subgroup and non-significant for the SNRI subgroup. Withdrawal and adverse event rates were similar, regardless of previous SSRI or SNRI treatment. These subgroup analyses showed statistical superiority of vortioxetine to agomelatine in inadequate responders to SSRIs and statistically non-significant improvements in the smaller SNRI subgroup, while being equally well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION This study has the ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01488071.