Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:This analysis evaluated the effects of the serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, desvenlafaxine (administered as desvenlafaxine succinate), on anxiety symptoms associated with depression. METHODS:Data were pooled from 9 randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, 8 week studies of desvenlafaxine (50-400 mg/day, fixed or flexible dose) in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), without a primary anxiety diagnosis. Changes from baseline in scores on the anxiety/somatization factor of the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D17) and on the Covi Anxiety Scale at the final evaluation (last observation carried forward) were compared between desvenlafaxine and placebo groups using analysis of covariance. RESULTS:In the overall data set (intent to treat n=2,913 [desvenlafaxine, n=1,805; placebo, n=1,108]), desvenlafaxine was associated with significantly greater reductions compared with placebo in scores on the HAM-D17 anxiety/somatization factor (-3.41 vs -2.92, P<.001) and Covi Anxiety Scale (-1.35 vs -1.04, P<.001). In the subset of fixed-dose studies, significant differences were observed for all dose groups on the HAM-D17 anxiety/somatization factor (P= or <.011), and for the 50, 100, and 200 mg/day dose groups on the Covi Anxiety Scale (all P= or <.015 vs placebo). CONCLUSIONS:Desvenlafaxine was associated with significantly greater improvement in anxiety symptoms compared with placebo in patients with MDD.

BACKGROUND:Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a common, seriously impairing illness. Desvenlafaxine (administered as desvenlafaxine succinate) is the third serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) approved in the United States for the treatment of MDD. Short-term clinical studies have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of 50 to 400 mg/d doses, with no evidence that doses greater than 50 mg/d confer additional benefit. OBJECTIVE:This paper summarizes published data on the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the desvenlafaxine 50-mg/d recommended therapeutic dose for MDD and discusses clinical practice considerations. METHODS:A systematic review of MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and PubMed (all years through June 2009) was performed using the terms desvenlafaxine, DVS, and ODV. The criteria for inclusion in the review were a double-blind design, a placebo control or active comparator group, the 50-mg desvenlafaxine dose group, and enrollment of patients with a diagnosis of MDD. Posters were included if they reported on a study that was subsequently published in a manuscript. RESULTS:Overall results of two randomized, placebo-controlled, 8-week clinical trials demonstrated the efficacy of desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d for MDD. Statistically significant improvements compared with placebo were observed on the primary efficacy measure (17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HAM-D(17)] total score; P < 0.05). Significant differences were observed on several secondary measures (Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale scores in both trials [P < 0.05]; Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scores [P < or = 0.01], Clinical Global Impressions-Severity scores [P < or = 0.01], HAM-D(17) response [P < or = 0.01] and remission [P < 0.05] in one trial each). Functional outcomes measures (Sheehan Disability Scale total and World Health Organization 5-Item Well-Being Index scores) were significant in both trials (P < 0.05). Safety results indicate desvenlafaxine treatment was safe and well tolerated; findings were consistent with the SNRI class. The generalizability of these findings is limited by the study protocols, which excluded patients with unstable comorbid medical conditions and also those with other Axis 1 and 2 psychiatric illnesses. Additionally, comparisons with other SNRIs are challenging given differences in study design. Desvenlafaxine can be initiated with the 50-mg/d therapeutic dose without titration and provides efficacy with rates of discontinuation due to treatment-emergent adverse events similar to placebo. In vitro data indicate desvenlafaxine has minimal inhibitory effects on cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D6 and clinical studies show desvenlafaxine does not have a clinically relevant effect on CYP2D6 metabolism. In vitro data also indicate desvenlafaxine is not a substrate or inhibitor of the p-glycoprotein transporter. Plasma protein binding of desvenlafaxine is low (30%) and independent of drug concentration. Bioavailability is high at 80% after oral administration and is not affected by food. CONCLUSIONS:Desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d has demonstrated efficacy, safety, and tolerability for the treatment of MDD in two placebo-controlled trials. The metabolic profile of desvenlafaxine suggests a low risk of drug-drug interactions owing to minimal inhibitory effects on CYP2D6, lack of interaction with p-glycoprotein, and low protein binding.

OBJECTIVE:Dialogues Time to Talk (Dialogues) is a care management program that provides additional follow-up care and patient education for outpatients with major depressive disorder (MDD) starting venlafaxine extended release (ER) therapy. This study examined the effect of the Dialogues program on patient treatment satisfaction. METHODS:In this 6-month, open-label study, primary care patients with MDD received usual care and were randomly assigned to venlafaxine ER (75 to 225 mg/d) either alone or in combination with the Dialogues program (venlafaxine ER + D). The primary outcome was patient treatment satisfaction on day 112, measured by the 10- point Satisfaction with Depression Care Scale (SDCS). Secondary efficacy outcomes included the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D17) total score, response (≥50% decrease from baseline HAM-D17 score), and remission (HAM-D17 ≤ 7). RESULTS:The modified intent-to-treat population included 263 patients in the venlafaxine ER group and 257 in the venlafaxine ER+D group. The percentage of patients with an SDCS "very satisfied" score (≥8) at day 112 was not significantly different in the venlafaxine ER and venlafaxine ER+D groups (63% and 58%, respectively; P = 0.22). No significant differences were found on any secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Among primary care patients starting venlafaxine ER for MDD, participation in the Dialogues program did not have a statistically significant effect on patient treatment satisfaction.

OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this review was to examine the risk of depression onset in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women, discuss the importance and rationale for screening for major depressive disorder (MDD) in women in the menopausal transition, and review therapeutic options for management of MDD in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. DATA SOURCES/METHODS:PubMed was searched (1970 to 2008) using combinations of the following terms: major depressive disorder, perimenopause, postmenopause, mood disorder, risk factors, reproductive period, family practice, differential diagnosis, hormone, estrogen replacement therapy, reuptake inhibitors, and neurotransmitter. STUDY SELECTION/METHODS:All relevant articles identified via the search terms reporting original data and published in English were considered for inclusion. Twenty-two cross-sectional and longitudinal studies were utilized to evaluate the relationship between the menopausal transition and risk of mood disorders and to formulate recommendations for screening and management of MDD in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. DATA EXTRACTION/METHODS:RESEARCH STUDIES UTILIZED THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: postal questionnaires, Women's Health Questionnaire, Beck Depression Inventory, Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression scale, Modified Menopause Symptom Inventory, 12-item symptom questionnaire, or Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV. DATA SYNTHESIS/RESULTS:Menopause is a normal, and for most women largely uneventful, part of life. For some women, however, the menopausal transition is a period of biologic vulnerability with noticeable physiologic, psychological, and somatic symptoms. The perimenopausal period is associated with a higher vulnerability for depression, with risk rising from early to late perimenopause and decreasing during postmenopause. Women with a history of depression are up to 5 times more likely to have a MDD diagnosis during this time period. CONCLUSIONS:Routine screening of this at-risk population followed by careful assessment for depressive symptoms can help identify the presence of MDD in the menopausal transition. Recognition of menopausal symptoms, with or without depression, is important given their potential impact on quality of life.

OBJECTIVE:To characterize weight change during short- and longer-term treatment with desvenlafaxine (administered as desvenlafaxine succinate) for major depressive disorder (MDD). METHOD/METHODS:Data from 9 short-term, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies and 1 longer-term relapse-prevention trial conducted between September 2002 and January 2007 were analyzed. Adult outpatients with a primary diagnosis of MDD using criteria from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition received fixed- or flexible-dose desvenlafaxine or placebo for 8 weeks in the short-term studies. In the longer-term study, responders to 12 weeks of open-label desvenlafaxine treatment were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with desvenlafaxine or placebo for 6 months. Mean weight changes and incidence of potentially clinically important changes were evaluated. RESULTS:In the short-term studies (desvenlafaxine: n = 1,834; placebo: n = 1,116), mean decreases in weight associated with desvenlafaxine were small but statistically significant compared with baseline (P < .05) and with placebo (final evaluation: -0.82 kg desvenlafaxine vs + 0.05 kg placebo; P < .001). Likewise, during the 12-week, open-label phase of the relapse-prevention study (n = 594), a small but statistically significant mean decrease in weight from baseline (-0.8 kg; P < .001) occurred. Small mean increases in weight (< 1 kg) were observed with both desvenlafaxine (n = 190) and placebo (n = 185) throughout the relapse-prevention phase, with no statistical difference between desvenlafaxine- and placebo-treated patients at the final evaluation. Less than 1% of desvenlafaxine-treated patients experienced a clinically meaningful weight change. CONCLUSIONS:Desvenlafaxine was not associated with clinically significant weight change during short- or longer-term treatment.

BACKGROUND:Cytokines of the innate immune response may contribute to behavioral alterations that resemble major depression as manifested in medically healthy individuals. METHODS:To explore potential similarities and differences between cytokine-induced depression and idiopathic major depression in healthy subjects, dimensional analyses comparing specific symptom dimensions of depression were conducted in 20 patients with malignant melanoma administered the innate immune cytokine, interferon (IFN)-alpha, and 28 medically healthy subjects with major depression of similar age and gender distribution. The Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression was used to assess severity of individual depressive symptoms. RESULTS:Severity of symptoms of anxiety, depressed mood, and impaired work/activities were comparable between patients with IFN-alpha-induced depression and medically healthy depressed patients. Interestingly, however, compared to medically healthy patients with major depression, patients with IFN-alpha-induced depression reported significantly greater psychomotor retardation and weight loss and significantly less severe feelings of guilt. LIMITATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:The relatively small sample size limited statistical power to detect small differences in symptom expression among groups. CONCLUSIONS:The data suggest that there is considerable overlap in symptom expression between cytokine-induced depression and idiopathic depression in medically healthy subjects. Nevertheless, differences in isolated symptom domains suggest that cytokines may preferentially target neurocircuits relevant to psychomotor activity (e.g. basal ganglia), while having a limited effect on cognitive distortions regarding self-appraisal.

In this meta-analysis, we compare the relative efficacy of venlafaxine to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in patients with major depressive disorder classified according to baseline disease severity. Data from 31 double-blind randomised clinical trials comparing venlafaxine and SSRIs (intent-to-treat n = 6,492) were pooled. For this secondary analysis, patients were stratified into groups based on baseline HAM-D(17) total score (>or=30, <30, >or=25, and <25). Remission rates (HAM-D(17) < 8) were analyzed for each subgroup using Fisher's exact test to compare treatment effects between venlafaxine and SSRIs; last observation carried forward (LOCF) and observed cases (OC) data were analyzed. The number needed to treat (NNT) to benefit was determined for each analysis. Statistically significant remission rate differences, favoring venlafaxine, were seen in LOCF and OC analyses for each subgroup. In patients with baseline HAM-D(17) < 25 (n = 3,928) the differences were (LOCF) 7.3 [P < 0.001; NNT = 14] and (OC) 6.2 [P = 0.003; NNT = 16], and in patients with baseline HAM-D(17) >or= 25 (n = 2,564) were (LOCF) 5.7 [P = 0.002; NNT = 17] and (OC) 6.7 [P = 0.009; NNT = 15]. In patients with baseline HAM-D(17) < 30 (n = 5,836) the differences were (LOCF) 6.4 [P < 0.001; NNT = 16] and (OC) 5.5 [P = 0.001; NNT = 18], and in patients with baseline HAM-D(17) >or= 30 (n = 656) were (LOCF) 8.9 [P = 0.015; NNT = 11] and (OC) 14.8 [P = 0.003; NNT = 7]. In conclusion, these analyses demonstrate that venlafaxine may be superior to SSRIs in achieving remission in both mild/moderate and severely depressed patients. The greater difference in remission rates among patients with baseline HAM-D(17) >or= 30 suggests a more pronounced clinical benefit that may be achieved with venlafaxine in severely depressed patients.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:To assess the efficacy of desvenlafaxine (administered as desvenlafaxine succinate) in outpatients with major depressive disorder. METHODS:A meta-analysis of individual patient data was performed on the complete set of registration trials (nine randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled 8-week studies) of desvenlafaxine. Patients received fixed (50, 100, 200, or 400 mg/day; n=1,342) or flexible doses (100-400 mg/day; n=463) of desvenlafaxine or placebo (n=1,108). The primary efficacy variable was the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D(17)); the primary intent to treat analyses used the last-observation-carried-forward method. RESULTS:Significantly greater improvement with desvenlafaxine versus placebo on the HAM-D(17) total score was observed for the full data set (difference in adjusted means: -1.9; P<.001), each fixed-dose group (all P<.001), and the flexible-dose group (P=.024). Overall rates of HAM-D1(17) response (> or =150% decrease from baseline score: 53% vs 41%) and remission (HAM-D(17) < or =7: 32% vs 23%) were significantly greater for desvenlafaxine versus placebo (all P<.001). Discontinuation rates due to adverse events increased with dose (4% to 18%; placebo: 3%). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Desvenlafaxine demonstrated short-term efficacy for treating major depressive disorder across the range of doses studied. No evidence of greater efficacy was observed with doses >50 mg/day; a strong dose-response effect on tolerability was observed.

OBJECTIVE:Patients (30-50%) with non-psychotic major depression will not respond despite an adequate trial of antidepressant medication. This study evaluated risperidone as an augmenting agent for patients who failed or only partially responded to an adequate trial of an antidepressant medication. METHOD/METHODS:Ninety-seven patients with unipolar non-psychotic major depression who were not responsive to antidepressant monotherapy were randomized to risperidone (0.5-3mg/day) or placebo augmentation in a four-week, double-blind, placebo controlled treatment trial. The primary outcome measure was remission defined by a score of < or =10 on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Secondary outcomes measures were the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, the Clinician Global Impression of Severity scale and the overall satisfaction item of the Quality of Life and Enjoyment Questionnaire. RESULTS:Subjects in both treatment groups improved significantly over time. The odds of remitting were significantly better for patients in the risperidone vs. placebo arm (OR=3.33, p=.011). At the end of 4 weeks of treatment 52% of the risperidone augmentation group remitted (MADRS< or =10) compared to 24% of the placebo augmentation group (CMH(1)=6.48, p=.011), but the two groups were converging. Patients in the risperidone group also reported significantly more improvement in quality-of-life than patients in the placebo group. There were no between-group differences in the number of adverse events reported, however, weight gain was significantly higher in the group receiving risperidone. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Augmentation of an antidepressant with risperidone for patients with difficult-to-treat depression leads to more rapid response and a higher remission rate and better quality-of-life.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term efficacy of venlafaxine extended release (ER) < or =225 mg/day in patients with recurrent major depressive disorder (MDD). In this double-blind trial, outpatients with recurrent MDD (N=1096) were randomized to 10 weeks of acute-phase treatment with venlafaxine ER (75-300 mg/day) or fluoxetine (20-60 mg/day) followed by a 6-month continuation phase and two consecutive 12-month maintenance phases. At the start of each maintenance period, venlafaxine ER responders were randomized to double-blind venlafaxine ER or placebo. In this analysis, data from responders to acute and continuation treatment were analyzed during the combined maintenance phases while receiving venlafaxine ER < or =225 mg/day. Failure to maintain response was defined as an increase in maintenance dose to 300 mg/day or recurrence. Differences were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods and compared using log-rank tests. Continuation-phase responders (n=114) receiving venlafaxine ER < or =225 mg/day comprised the analysis population (venlafaxine ER: n=55; placebo: n=59). The estimated probability for remaining well across 24 months of maintenance treatment was 67% for venlafaxine ER and 41% for placebo (P=0.007). Venlafaxine ER effectively maintained response at doses < or =225 mg/day for up to 2.5 years in patients with recurrent MDD. The findings are consistent with those of the full data set.