Search

Some evolutionary researchers have argued that current diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder (MDD) may not accurately distinguish true instances of disorder from a normal, adaptive stress response. According to disorder advocates, neurochemicals like the monoamine neurotransmitters (serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine) are dysregulated in major depression. Monoamines are normally under homeostatic control, so the monoamine disorder hypothesis implies a breakdown in homeostatic mechanisms. In contrast, adaptationist hypotheses propose that homeostatic mechanisms are properly functioning in most patients meeting current criteria for MDD. If the homeostatic mechanisms regulating monoamines are functioning properly in these patients, then oppositional tolerance should develop with prolonged antidepressant medication (ADM) therapy. Oppositional tolerance refers to the forces that develop when a homeostatic mechanism has been subject to prolonged pharmacological perturbation that attempt to bring the system back to equilibrium. When pharmacological intervention is discontinued, the oppositional forces cause monoamine levels to overshoot their equilibrium levels. Since depressive symptoms are under monoaminergic control, this overshoot should cause a resurgence of depressive symptoms that is proportional to the perturbational effect of the ADM. We test this prediction by conducting a meta-analysis of ADM discontinuation studies. We find that the risk of relapse after ADM discontinuation is positively associated with the degree to which ADMs enhance serotonin and norepinephrine in prefrontal cortex, after controlling for covariates. The results are consistent with oppositional tolerance, and provide no evidence of malfunction in the monoaminergic regulatory mechanisms in patients meeting current diagnostic criteria for MDD. We discuss the evolutionary and clinical implications of our findings.

Objective: Two antidepressant medication combinations were compared with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor monotherapy to determine whether either combination produced a higher remission rate in first-step acute-phase (12 weeks) and long-term (7 months) treatment., Method: The single-blind, prospective, randomized trial enrolled 665 outpatients at six primary and nine psychiatric care sites. Participants had at least moderately severe nonpsychotic chronic and/or recurrent major depressive disorder. Escitalopram (up to 20 mg/day) plus placebo, sustained-release bupropion (up to 400 mg/day) plus escitalopram (up to 20 mg/day), or extended-release venlafaxine (up to 300 mg/day) plus mirtazapine (up to 45 mg/day) was delivered (1:1:1 ratio) by using measurement-based care. The primary outcome was remission, defined as ratings of less than 8 and less than 6 on the last two consecutive applications of the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology--Self-Report. Secondary outcomes included side effect burden, adverse events, quality of life, functioning, and attrition., Results: Remission and response rates and most secondary outcomes were not different among treatment groups at 12 weeks. The remission rates were 38.8% for escitalopram-placebo, 38.9% for bupropion-escitalopram, and 37.7% for venlafaxine-mirtazapine, and the response rates were 51.6%-52.4%. The mean number of worsening adverse events was higher for venlafaxine-mirtazapine (5.7) than for escitalopram-placebo (4.7). At 7 months, remission rates (41.8%-46.6%), response rates (57.4%-59.4%), and most secondary outcomes were not significantly different., Conclusions: Neither medication combination outperformed monotherapy. The combination of extended-release venlafaxine plus mirtazapine may have a greater risk of adverse events.

This secondary analysis from the Prevention of Recurrent Episodes of Depression with Venlafaxine Extended Release (ER) for Two Years (PREVENT) study compared the efficacy of venlafaxine ER and fluoxetine for the prevention of recurrence in patients with a history of recurrent major depressive disorder (MDD). Patients received double-blind treatment with venlafaxine ER (75-300 mg/d) or fluoxetine (20-60 mg/d) for 10 weeks (acute phase). Responders (17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HAM-D(17)] score ≤ 12 and ≥ 50% reduction from baseline) continued on the same treatment during the 6-month continuation phase. At the start of the first and second 12-month maintenance phases, venlafaxine ER responders were randomly assigned to receive venlafaxine ER or placebo, whereas patients receiving fluoxetine continued to receive fluoxetine throughout both maintenance phases. The primary outcome was time to recurrence (HAM-D(17) > 12, reduction in HAM-D(17) score ≤ 50% from acute baseline, and meeting DSM-IV criteria for a diagnosis of MDD), which was assessed using Kaplan-Meier estimates. Using the primary definition of recurrence, the estimated probability of not experiencing a recurrence was 71.9% for venlafaxine ER (n = 160) and 55.8% for fluoxetine (n = 99) across 24 months of maintenance treatment. For this primary analysis, the overall effect of venlafaxine ER treatment was not statistically significant (p = 0.399) compared with fluoxetine; however, a significant treatment-by-time interaction was observed (p = 0.034). No significant between-group differences were observed with any of the secondary efficacy variables. Venlafaxine ER and fluoxetine were similarly well tolerated across 2 years of maintenance-phase therapy., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Preliminary clinical evidence indicates that menopausal status might impact on the efficacy of certain classes of antidepressants., Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate open-label desvenlafaxine treatment (administered as desvenlafaxine succinate) in postmenopausal women who did not achieve clinical response to acute, double-blind treatment with desvenlafaxine or escitalopram., Study Design: This phase IIIb, multicentre study included a 6-month open-label extension phase of patients who did not respond in the initial 8-week, randomized, double-blind acute phase., Patients: Postmenopausal women aged 40-70 years with a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder were recruited. PRIMARY INTERVENTION: Non-responders to acute treatment with double-blind desvenlafaxine or escitalopram received flexible-dose, open-label desvenlafaxine 100-200 mg/day for the 6-month extension phase., Main Outcome Measure: The primary efficacy assessment was the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D(17)) total score. Secondary efficacy outcome measures were the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) and -Severity scales, Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety, Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report, Visual Analogue Scale-Pain Intensity and the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Secondary health assessments were the Changes in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire, 5-Dimension EuroQoL Index, Health State Today, Menopause Rating Scale, Sheehan Disability Scale, treatment response (≥ 50% decrease in total HAM-D(17) and MADRS score from acute-phase baseline and CGI-I total score ≤ 2), HAM-D(17) remission (total score ≤ 7) and safety. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize outcomes., Results: The efficacy analysis included 123 patients (desvenlafaxine/desvenlafaxine = 64; escitalopram/desvenlafaxine = 59). At final evaluation of the open-label extension phase, mean reductions from acute-phase baseline in HAM-D(17) total scores were -11.33 for the desvenlafaxine/desvenlafaxine group and -11.41 for the escitalopram/desvenlafaxine group. HAM-D(17) response or remission after 6 months of open-label extension phase desvenlafaxine treatment were achieved in 56-58% and 41-48% of patients, respectively. The results of the other secondary efficacy outcome measures and other definitions of treatment response were generally consistent with the primary analyses. The observed adverse events were similar to those reported during previous desvenlafaxine clinical trials., Conclusions: Postmenopausal women with major depressive disorder who did not respond to acute, double-blind treatment with escitalopram or desvenlafaxine achieved modest, continued improvement with long-term, open-label desvenlafaxine therapy. Further interpretation of these findings is limited by aspects of the study design (i.e. open-label, non-placebo-controlled) and the lack of randomized comparison groups in the extension phase, which prevents statistical assessment of the efficacy of longer term treatment with desvenlafaxine. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00406640.

We conducted a secondary analysis of data from the Prevention of Recurrent Episodes of Depression With Venlafaxine Extended Release (ER) for Two Years (PREVENT) trial to evaluate whether discrepancies between clinician and patient ratings of depression severity were predictive of response, remission, and recurrence during treatment for a depressive episode. Patients who self-rated depression severity in concordance with the clinician ("concordant patients") were defined as having a standardized patient-rated Inventory of Depressive Symptoms-Self Report (IDS-SR₃₀) score minus standardized clinician-rated Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D₁₇) score <1 SD from mean. Non-concordant patients ("underrating patients" [-1 SD], "overrating patients" [+1 SD]) were identified. Cohorts were compared for remission and response on the HAM-D₁₇, Clinician Global Impression--Severity (CGI-S), and IDS-SR₃₀ during acute and continuation therapy and time to recurrence during maintenance therapy. During acute treatment female patients were more likely to overrate their depression severity compared to the clinician; older age predicted overrating during continuation treatment. Overrating patients had a slower onset of response on the HAM-D₁₇ during acute treatment (P=0.004). There were no differences between cohorts for remission or response on the HAM-D₁₇ or CGI-S. Overrating patients at week 10 had lower remission and response rates on the IDS-SR₃₀ during continuation therapy (32% and 50%, respectively; P≤0.001) compared with underrating patients (76%, 77%) or concordant patients (64%, 78%). Patient concordance at the end of continuation therapy did not predict recurrence during maintenance therapy, indicating that patient rating scales may be useful in tracking recurrence during maintenance therapy. Poor agreement between patient- and clinician-ratings of depression severity is primarily a state phenomenon, although it is trait-like for some patients., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The risk for major depressive disorder (MDD) increases during the menopausal transition. Nonetheless, no large, placebo-controlled studies have prospectively assessed the efficacy of antidepressants in perimenopausal or postmenopausal women. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluated the short-term efficacy and safety of desvenlafaxine (administered as desvenlafaxine succinate) in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women with DSM-IV-defined MDD., Method: 387 depressed perimenopausal and postmenopausal women aged 40 to 70 years were randomly assigned to placebo or desvenlafaxine (100 or 200 mg/d at the discretion of the investigator) in an 8-week, flexible-dose trial conducted from September 2006 to June 2008. The primary efficacy variable was change from baseline in 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS(17)) total score, analyzed using a mixed-effects model for repeated-measures analysis. Safety data were collected throughout the trial., Results: The reduction in adjusted HDRS17 total scores from baseline to week 8 (mean daily dose after titration, 162 to 176 mg/d) was significantly greater for desvenlafaxine (-12.64) compared with placebo (-8.33; P < .001). Statistical separation from placebo was observed at week 1 and was sustained through week 8. Both the perimenopausal and postmenopausal subgroups achieved significant reductions in HDRS(17) total scores with desvenlafaxine treatment (perimenopausal, P = .003; postmenopausal, P < .001). Response (58.6%) and remission (38.2%) rates were significantly higher for desvenlafaxine compared with placebo (31.6% [P < .001] and 22.4% [P = .008], respectively). In all, 19/256 (7.4%) desvenlafaxine-treated patients and 4/125 (3.2%) placebo-treated patients discontinued due to adverse events. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 94/125 (75.2%) placebo-treated patients and 218/256 (85.2%) desvenlafaxine-treated patients., Conclusions: Short-term treatment with desvenlafaxine was effective and generally well tolerated in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women with MDD., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00369343., (Copyright 2010 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)

This pooled analysis evaluated the efficacy of desvenlafaxine (administered as desvenlafaxine succinate) for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in patients grouped by age and sex. Nine clinical trials were pooled. Outpatients 18 years or older with MDD received desvenlafaxine 50, 100, 200, or 400 mg/d (men = 709; women = 1096) or placebo (men = 399; women = 709) for 8 weeks. Data were analyzed by sex and by age groups of 40 years and younger, 41 to 54 years, 55 to 64 years, and 65 years and older. The primary outcome was change from baseline in the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D17) total score at the final evaluation. Secondary measures included response (> or =50% reduction in HAM-D17) and remission (HAM-D17 < or =7). No significant sex-treatment, age-treatment, or sex-age-treatment interactions were observed. Differences in the HAM-D17 change from baseline for desvenlafaxine versus placebo were -1.72 for women (P < 0.001) and -2.11 for men (P < 0.001); these changes were significant among women of the 18-to-40 (P = 0.01), 41-to-54 (P = 0.002), and 65-years-and-older subgroups (P = 0.02), and significant among men for the 18-to-40 (P = 0.03) and 41-to-54 subgroups (P = 0.002). The response rates for desvenlafaxine and placebo were 53% and 42% (P < 0.001), respectively, among women, and 53% and 41% (P < 0.001), respectively, among men; the remission rates were 31% and 21% (P < 0.001) and 34% and 26% (P = 0.007), respectively. The response rates were similar across age subgroups, with significant differences from placebo observed in the 18-to-40 (P < or = 0.05), 41-to-54 (P < or = 0.005), and 65-and-older subgroups (P = 0.02). The remission rates were significant versus placebo in the 41-to-54 (P = 0.006), 55-to-64 (P = 0.01), and 65-and-older (P = 0.02) subgroups among women but not in any age subgroup among men. Desvenlafaxine generally improved depressive symptoms across age and sex subgroups.

Adverse events during selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) treatment are frequent and may lead to premature treatment discontinuation. If attrition is associated with early worsening of adverse effects or the frequency, intensity, or burden of adverse effects, interventions to maximize retention could be focused on patients with these events. Outpatient participants (n = 265) with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder entered an 8-week trial with an SSRI. At baseline and week 2, specific adverse effects were evaluated with the Systematic Assessment for Treatment Emergent Events--Systematic Inquiry, and at week 2, the Frequency, Intensity, and Burden of Side Effects Rating globally assessed adverse effects. Attrition was defined by those participants who left treatment after week 2 but before week 8. No specific week 2 adverse effect, either treatment-emergent or with worsening intensity, was independently associated with attrition. Global ratings of adverse effect frequency, intensity, or burden at week 2 were also not associated with subsequent attrition. Neither global ratings nor specific adverse effects at week 2 were related to patient attrition during SSRI treatment. Other factors seem to contribute to patient decisions about continuing with treatment.

Background: The degree of agreement between patient- and clinician-rated scales of depressive severity varies widely. This study analyzed agreement between commonly used depression rating scales in the Prevention of Recurrent Episodes of Depression with Venlafaxine Extended Release (ER) for Two Years (PREVENT) trial., Methods: The PREVENT trial was a multiphase, randomized, double-blind study of patients with recurrent major depressive disorder. This secondary analysis evaluated acute (10weeks) and continuation phase (6months) data. Pearson correlation coefficients at each acute-phase (weekly) and continuation-phase (monthly) visit were calculated for patient-rated (30-item Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Rated [IDS-SR30] and clinician-rated (17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HAM-D17] and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity [CGI-S]) measures and for response and remission., Results: Data from 1,047 patients were analyzed. The respective correlation coefficients at baseline, week 10, and month 6 were: IDS-SR30: HAM-D17: 0.46, 0.75, 0.70; and for IDS-SR30: CGI-S 0.28, 0.67, 0.65. Agreement between IDS-SR30- and HAM-D17-defined remission and response was relatively poor: week 10, 0.52 and 0.34, respectively; month 6, 0.45 and 0.32, respectively., Conclusions: These findings suggest that patient-rated measures of depression severity do not correspond strongly with clinician ratings, and are particularly poor prior to the initiation of treatment., (Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To link the Premenstrual Symptoms Impact Survey (PMSIS) scores to health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and sexual drive impact associated with premenstrual syndrome (PMS) and premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD)., Study Design: Secondary data analysis was performed using the online survey study for PMSIS development. Women were sorted into 10 mutually exclusive score levels (N = 949). Their responses to the SF-12v2 Health Survey and the sexual drive question were dichotomized to indicate the presence of limitations/impairment. Chi-square analysis was conducted to compare the differences in percentages of women with limitations across 3 representative PMSIS score levels containing (1) women with no indication of PMS, (2) women at risk for PMS but not PMDD, and (3) women at risk for PMDD., Results: The higher the PMSIS score level (more severe impact), the greater the percentage of women reported functional limitations. Women either at risk for PMS or PMDD were significantly more likely to report limitations than women with no indication of PMS in all HRQOL areas except for 2 Physical Functioning items and 1 Mental Health item and the General Health item. Significantly more women with PMS (67.5%) and with PMDD (73.3%) reported sexual drive impact than in women with no PMS (45.7%)., Conclusion: The associations between PMSIS score levels and the premenstrual symptoms' impact on HRQOL and sexual functioning assist the interpretation of PMSIS scores and use of the tool in reproductive-age women.

Objective: To evaluate the effects of desvenlafaxine therapy on functioning and well-being in major depressive disorder (MDD)., Method: Total and individual item Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) and 5-item World Health Organization Well-Being Index (WHO-5) scores from 8 double-blind, placebo-controlled, 8-week desvenlafaxine clinical trials were pooled. Scores on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS(17)) work/activities and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) lassitude items were pooled from 9 studies. Outpatients with DSM-IV MDD were randomly assigned to fixed (5 studies; 50, 100, 200, or 400 mg/d; n = 1,342) or flexible (4 studies, 100-400 mg/d; n = 463) doses of desvenlafaxine or placebo (n = 1,108). Data from each patient's final evaluation were analyzed for the total population and for individual dose groups from the fixed-dose studies and were compared between groups using analysis of covariance., Results: Compared with placebo, desvenlafaxine therapy resulted in significantly greater improvements in SDS total score (-2.0) and individual items regarding work (-0.6), social life/leisure activities (-0.8), and family life/home responsibilities (-0.7; P < .001 for all comparisons), as well as WHO-5 total score (1.7) and individual items (good spirits [0.4], calm/relaxed [0.4], active/vigorous [0.3], fresh/rested [0.3], and interest [0.3]; P < .001 for all comparisons). Desvenlafaxine treatment resulted in significant improvements on the HDRS(17) work/activities (-0.2; P < .001) and MADRS lassitude (-0.3; P < .001) items compared with placebo. Significant differences were observed for the individual fixed-dose groups on all outcomes (P < .05); there was no evidence of a dose-response relationship., Conclusions: Desvenlafaxine therapy resulted in significant improvements in the functioning and well-being among MDD patients., (Copyright 2009 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)

Introduction: Recent data suggest that escitalopram may be more effective in severe depression than other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors., Methods: Individual patient data from four randomized, double-blind comparative trials of escitalopram versus a serotonin/norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) (two trials with duloxetine and two with venlafaxine extended release) in outpatients (18-85 years of age) with moderate-to-severe major depressive disorder were pooled. The primary efficacy parameter in all four trials was mean change in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score., Results: Significantly fewer escitalopram (82/524) than SNRI (114/527) patients prematurely withdrew from treatment due to all causes (15.6% vs. 21.6%, Fisher Exact: P=.014) and adverse events (5.3% vs. 12.0%, Fisher Exact: P<.0001). Mean reduction in MADRS score from baseline to Week 8 was significantly greater for the escitalopram group versus the SNRI group using the last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach [mean treatment difference at Week 8 of 1.7 points (P<.01)]. Similar results were observed in the severely depressed (baseline MADRS score >or= 30) patient subset (mean treatment difference at Week 8 of 2.9 points [P<.001, LOCF]). Observed cases analyses yielded no significant differences in efficacy parameters., Conclusion: This pooled analysis indicates that escitalopram is at least as effective as the SNRIs (venlafaxine XR and duloxetine), even in severe depression, and escitalopram treatment was better tolerated.

Attrition rates are high during treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD), and patients who drop out are less likely to reach remission. This report evaluates the incidence, timing, and predictors of attrition during second-step medication treatment. Outpatients in the multisite Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study receiving a medication augmentation (n=563) or medication switch (n=723) for non-psychotic MDD after an unsatisfactory outcome with citalopram were evaluated to determine attrition rates and pretreatment sociodemographic or clinical predictors of attrition. Twenty percent of participants receiving a medication augmentation and 27% receiving a medication switch dropped out before 12 wk in the second treatment step. Remission rates were lower for dropouts [7% vs. 43% (medication augmentation); 12% vs. 31% (medication switch)]. For medication augmentation, Black and other non-Caucasian races, Hispanic ethnicity, younger age, family history of drug abuse, concurrent drug abuse, sociodemographic disadvantage, less symptom improvement with initial citalopram treatment, and greater symptom severity when beginning augmentation were associated with attrition. For medication switch, Black and other non-Caucasian races, younger age, more melancholic features, and lower exit doses but more severe side-effects with citalopram treatment were associated with attrition. Minority status, younger age, and greater difficulty with the first treatment step are risk factors for attrition in the second treatment step. Focus on patients with attrition risk factors for medication augmentation or switch strategies may enhance retention and improve outcomes.

Introduction: The safety and tolerability profiles of antidepressants can often influence the treatment choices of clinicians treating major depressive disorder. The purpose of this investigation was to characterize the safety and tolerability of desvenlafaxine (administered as desvenlafaxine succinate) in treating depression., Methods: An integrated analysis of all short-term, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled registration studies for major depressive disorder (four flexible-dose and five fixed-dose studies) was performed. Adult outpatients with major depressive disorder received desvenlafaxine doses ranging from 50-400 mg/day or placebo for 8 weeks. Treatment-emergent adverse events, laboratory values, vital signs, and discontinuation symptoms were evaluated. In the subset of fixed-dose studies, dose-related effects were analyzed., Results: In the overall population (placebo: n=1,116; desvenlafaxine: n=1,834), adverse events resulted in discontinuations in 3% of placebo-treated patients and 12% of desvenlafaxine-treated patients; in the subset of fixed-dose studies, the rates were 4% with placebo and increased with desvenlafaxine dose (50 mg/day: 4%; 400 mg/day: 18%). The most common treatment-emergent adverse event was transient nausea that was generally mild to moderate. The most common sexual dysfunction associated with desvenlafaxine treatment was erectile dysfunction in men (7% vs 1% with placebo) and anorgasmia in women (1% and 0%). One desvenlafaxine-treated patient died of a completed suicide; there were four suicide attempts (three desvenlafaxine, one placebo) and eight cases of suicidal ideation (five desvenlafaxine, three placebo) during the on-therapy period. Small but statistically significant changes in mean blood pressure occurred at all desvenlafaxine doses; clinically meaningful changes were observed in 1% of placebo-treated patients and 2% of desvenlafaxine-treated patients. Desvenlafaxine was associated with small but statistically significant mean changes in laboratory assessments, particularly lipid and liver enzyme elevations, and electrocardiograms; few cases of these changes were clinically relevant., Conclusion: Desvenlafaxine in the treatment of major depressive disorder exhibited a safety and tolerability profile generally consistent with the serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor class. The most common adverse event was transient nausea. At the recommended therapeutic dose of 50 mg/day, discontinuation due to adverse events was similar to placebo.

Introduction: 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: 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.

Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is a relatively prevalent and disabling condition. Duloxetine, an inhibitor of both serotonin and norepinephrine, was approved by the US FDA in 2007 for the treatment of GAD. Short-term efficacy of duloxetine in dosages of 60-120 mg/day has been established in four double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of 9-10 weeks duration. Duloxetine has also been found to meet rigorous criteria for noninferiority in comparison with venlafaxine in GAD. Duloxetine has shown superiority on measures of functioning and quality of life and, compared with placebo treatment, it reduces painful physical symptoms common in GAD patients. Continuation treatment for acute treatment responders was found to prevent relapse of GAD to a significantly greater degree than placebo. In all acute and long-term trials, duloxetine was well-tolerated. This body of research suggests that duloxetine should be one of the options considered as a first-line treatment for GAD.

Objective: Controversy exists as to whether women with depression respond better to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) than men. The purpose of this report was to determine whether men and women differ in their responses to treatment with the SSRI citalopram using a large sample of real world patients from primary and psychiatric specialty care settings., Method: As part of the sequenced treatment alternatives to relieve depression (STAR *D) study, 2876 participants were treated with citalopram for up to 12-14 weeks. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics and outcomes were gathered and compared between men and women., Results: At baseline, women were younger, had more severe depressive symptoms and were more likely to have: early onset; previous suicide attempt(s); a family history of depression, alcohol abuse or drug abuse; atypical symptom features; and one or more of several concurrent psychiatric disorders. Despite greater baseline severity and more Axis I comorbidities, women were more likely to reach remission and response with citalopram than men., Conclusions: Women have a better response to the SSRI citalopram than men, which may be due to sex-specific biological differences particularly in serotonergic systems.

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of desvenlafaxine on a broad range of major depressive disorder (MDD) symptoms., Methods: Data were pooled from 9 double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, 8-week studies of desvenlafaxine in adult outpatients with MDD. Intent-to-treat participants received fixed- (50, 100, 200, or 400 mg/d; n = 1342) or flexible-dose (100 to 400 mg/d, n = 463) desvenlafaxine or placebo (n = 1108). Final on-therapy scores for individual items of the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD17) and the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) were compared between groups using analysis of covariance. Efficacy at different doses was examined using the subset of fixed-dose studies., Results: Based on differences in adjusted mean changes from baseline (desvenlafaxine vs placebo), statistically significant advantages with desvenlafaxine (50 to 400 mg/d, all doses pooled) vs placebo were seen for 10 of the 17 HAM-D17 items: depressed mood (-0.4; P < 0.001), feelings of guilt (-0.2; P < 0.001), suicide (-0.1; P < 0.001), late insomnia (-0.1; P = 0.001), work and activities (-0.2; P < 0.001), psychomotor retardation (-0.1; P < 0.001), agitation (-0.1; P < 0.001), psychic anxiety (-0.3; P < 0.001), general somatic symptoms (-0.2; P < 0.001), and genital symptoms (-0.1; P = 0.003). Desvenlafaxine (50 to 400 mg/d, pooled) was significantly better than placebo on all MADRS items (range: -0.1 to -0.5; all P 0.05). Symptom relief was similar with all desvenlafaxine doses examined, including 50 mg/d., Conclusions: Shortterm desvenlafaxine therapy (50 to 400 mg/d) improved a broad range of emotional and physical symptoms in outpatients with MDD.

Background: Antidepressant tachyphylaxis describes the return of apathetic depressive symptoms, such as fatigue and decreased motivation, despite continued use of a previously effective treatment., Methods: Data were collected from a multiphase, doubleblind, placebo-controlled study that assessed the efficacy of venlafaxine extended release (ER) during 2 sequential 1-year maintenance phases (A and B) in patients with recurrent major depressive disorder (MDD). The primary outcome was the cumulative probability of tachyphylaxis in patients receiving venlafaxine ER, fluoxetine, or placebo. Tachyphylaxis was defined as Rothschild Scale for Antidepressant Tachyphylaxis (RSAT) score

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.

Because many patients do not respond to pharmacotherapy for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), it would be beneficial to know if early response is predictive of final outcome so that timely clinical decisions can be made about augmentation or alternative treatments. This topic has not been examined with the now recommended first-line treatments (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors) for GAD. Combined data from three 9 to 10week acute treatment, multi-center, randomized, placebo-controlled studies of duloxetine for GAD were used to explore early improvement on the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA) in relation to endpoint HAMA response (> or = 50% improvement from baseline), HAMA remission (< or = 7), Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) response (< or = 2), and functional remission as measured by the Sheehan Disability Scale Global Functional Improvement (< or = 5). For duloxetine-treated patients (n=668), the relationships between the proportion of patients who achieved each category of early (week 2 and week 4) HAMA improvement (> or = 20%, > or = 40%, > or = 60%, and > or = 80%) and achievement of endpoint HAMA response, HAMA remission, CGI response, and SDS remission status were all statistically significant (all P's < or = 0.003). One hundred percent of the duloxetine-treated patients who showed substantial HAMA improvement (>80%) at week 2, and 93% at week 4, were HAMA responders at endpoint. At week 2, 79% of the duloxetine-treated patients who achieved a HAMA improvement of 40-59% were HAMA responders at endpoint. About half of duloxetine-treated patient showing 40-59% early HAMA improvement were remitters on the SDS at endpoint. These data suggest a connection between early improvement and endpoint response and remission status that can be used to guide clinical decision-making.

Background: To identify putative demographic and clinical variables that correlate with antidepressant response to the SNRI duloxetine in major depression., Methods: The effect of 130 candidate treatment outcome predictors was examined on 3 dependent treatment outcome measures related to depression: 1) depression symptom outcome measured by HAMD-17 total and HAMD-17 percent change from baseline to endpoint, 2) remission (HAMD-17 < or = 7 at endpoint) and response (> or = 50% reduction in HAMD-17 from baseline to endpoint) rates, and 3) time to response (days to > or = 50% reduction in HAMD-17)., Results: Eleven variables had an overall predictive index of > or = 20% and were associated with poorer treatment outcome: HAMD-17 total, duration of current MDD episode, leaden paralysis, fatigue, HAMA total, HAMA items 2 and 8, HAMD-17 anxiety/somatization subscale, anxiety-related comorbid conditions, and VAS overall pain and pain while awake., Conclusions: Our results highlight the clinical relevance of more severe and/or persistent levels of depression, psychiatric and medical comorbidity, and symptoms characteristic of atypical depression (leaden paralysis and fatigue) and confirm findings from other studies that such patients may respond less well or take longer to respond to pharmacotherapy. Consistent with previous SNRI studies, we found no significant association between age, gender, and race/ethnicity and treatment outcome.

Family functioning and parenting were hypothesized to mediate the relation between remission of maternal depression and children's psychosocial adjustment. Participants were 114 mother-child dyads participating in the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression Child 3-month follow-up. All mothers had been diagnosed with major depressive disorder and were treated initially with citalopram; 33% of mothers experienced remission of depressive symptoms. Youth ranged in age from 7 to 17. Remission of maternal depression was associated with changes in children's reports of their mothers' warmth/acceptance, which in turn partially mediated the relation between maternal depression remission and youth internalizing symptoms, accounting for 22.9% of the variance.

Objective: To compare efficacy of remaining on duloxetine 60 mg to increasing to 120 mg q.d. in patients without remission of major depressive disorder (MDD) after 6 weeks at 60 mg., Method: This double-blind, parallel study was conducted in adults with MDD (DSM-IV-TR criteria). Patients initially randomly assigned to duloxetine 60 mg for 6 weeks with a 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-17) score > 7 (nonremitters) were randomly reassigned to 60 mg or 120 mg duloxetine for 8 weeks. Patients with a HAM-D-17 score < or =7 (remitters) continued on duloxetine 60 mg. The primary objective was to compare time to remission (HAM-D-17 score < or =7) between rerandomized groups. Secondary objectives included evaluation of HAM-D-17 and Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology assessments and safety and tolerability evaluations in nonremitters and remitters. Patients were enrolled from November 2004 to January 2006., Results: Nonremitters randomly reassigned to 60 mg and 120 mg achieved similar time to remission and similar improvements on efficacy measures. Remission was achieved in 30.0% and 30.5% in the 60-mg and 120-mg groups, respectively. Of the remitters, 85.5% continued to be in remission at study end. Other than a greater incidence of hyperhidrosis and chest pain in the 120-mg group, adverse events were similar between groups, as were discontinuations due to adverse events., Conclusion: Nonremitters to 60 mg of duloxetine for 6 weeks randomly reassigned to 60 mg or 120 mg of duloxetine demonstrated continued symptom improvement in the 8-week extension. Patients randomly reassigned to 120 mg showed no advantage over those who continued on 60 mg. Duloxetine was well tolerated at both doses and had similar safety profiles., (Copyright 2008 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)

Number of lifetime episodes, duration of current episode, and severity of maternal depression were investigated in relation to family functioning and child adjustment. Participants were the 151 mother-child pairs in the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) child multi-site study. Mothers were diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder; children (80 males and 71 females) ranged in age from 7 to 17 years. Measures of child adjustment included psychiatric diagnoses, internalizing and externalizing symptoms, and functional impairment. Measures of family functioning included family cohesion, expressiveness, conflict, organization, and household control; parenting measures assessed maternal acceptance and psychological control. Children of mothers with longer current depressive episodes were more likely to have internalizing and externalizing symptoms, with this association being moderated by child gender. Mothers with more lifetime depressive episodes were less likely to use appropriate control in their homes.

Purpose: Faculty attrition, particularly among female and minority faculty, is a serious problem in academic medical settings. The reasons why faculty in academic medical settings choose to leave their employment are not well understood. Further, it is not clear if the reasons why women and minority faculty leave differ from those of other groups., Methods: One hundred sixty-six medical school faculty who left the School of Medicine (SOM) between July 1, 2001, and June 30, 2005, completed a survey about their reasons for leaving., Results: The three most common overall reasons for leaving the institution included career/professional advancement (29.8%), low salary (25.5%), and chairman/departmental leadership issues (22.4%). The ranking of these reasons varied slightly across racial and gender groups, with women and minority faculty also citing personal reasons for leaving. Women and minority faculty were at lower academic ranks at the time they left the SOM compared with male and majority groups. Although salary differences were not present at the time of initial hire, sex was a significant predictor of lower salary at the start of the new position. Opportunity for advancement and the rate of promotion were significantly different between women and men. Job characteristics prior to leaving that were rated most poorly were protected time for teaching and research, communication across the campus, and patient parking. Harassment and discrimination were reported by a small number of those surveyed, particularly women and minority faculty., Conclusions: The majority of reasons for faculty attrition are amenable to change. Retaining high-quality faculty in medical settings may justify the costs of faculty development and retention efforts.

The need for maintenance therapy in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) is underscored by the high likelihood of recurrence after short-term treatment. Current recommendations include treatment to remission and long-term treatment to prevent relapse and recurrence. This article will summarize the design and results of the Prevention of Recurrent Episodes of Depression with Venlafaxine for Two Years (PREVENT) study, which have been published elsewhere. PREVENT evaluated venlafaxine extended release (ER) versus placebo in two 1-year maintenance phases for prevention of recurrence in patients with MDD who responded to acute and continuation therapy. Venlafaxine ER was effective in preventing long-term recurrence when compared with placebo, with a significant reduction in likelihood of recurrence and significantly longer time to recurrence after both 1 and 2 years of maintenance therapy. Recurrence rates in the first and second maintenance periods for patients receiving placebo were similar (42 vs 45%), but recurrence rates for patients receiving venlafaxine ER decreased dramatically (23 vs 8%). The PREVENT study adds to current understanding regarding the benefits of long-term antidepressant therapy in preventing recurrence.

Objective: To develop and validate the Premenstrual Symptoms Impact Survey (PMSIS), a brief web-based instrument for evaluating the impact of premenstrual symptoms on health-related quality of life (HRQOL)., Methods: An item bank of 68 questions was administered to a nationally representative sample of 971 women using the web, aged 18-45, who experienced regular menstrual cycles in the past 3 months, were not currently pregnant or breastfeeding, and were not being treated or taking medications for depression-related disorders in the last 2 years. Item reduction was performed using forward stepwise linear regression of an overall symptom severity score onto item scores. Three standards were used to validate the instrument: (1) the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists retrospective diagnostic criteria for identifying participants "at risk" for clinically significant premenstrual syndrome (PMS), (2) the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders retrospective diagnostic criteria for identifying participants at risk for premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD), and (3) the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form (SF-12) Health Survey., Results: Six items met entry criteria in the model. Approximately 6.0% of the participants were identified as being at risk for PMDD, and 17.3% were identified as being at risk for clinically significant PMS. PMSIS scale score differed significantly between participants who were and were not at risk for PMDD/clinically significant PMS. PMSIS scale score also differed significantly between participants having either high, average, or low HRQOL as defined by SF-12 physical and mental component summary scores., Conclusions: These results demonstrate that the PMSIS has excellent discriminative ability to detect differences in groups that are known to differ in terms of clinical criteria. The PMSIS can be used to educate consumers about the impact of their symptoms on QOL.

Objective: To conduct a post hoc evaluation of the prevalence of clinically significant pain and the efficacy of duloxetine in patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and concurrent pain., Method: Data from two 9- to 10-week double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials of duloxetine (60 to 120 mg) in DSM-IV-defined GAD were analyzed (study 1 was conducted from July 2004 to September 2005; study 2 was conducted from August 2004 to June 2005). Efficacy was assessed with the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A), visual analog scales (VAS) for pain, the Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS), the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement of Illness (CGI-I) scale, the Patient Global Impressions-Improvement (PGI-I) scale, and the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) global functional impairment scale., Results: Of 840 patients randomly assigned to treatment, 61.3% (302 duloxetine, 213 placebo) had VAS scores ≥ 30 mm on at least 1 of the pain scales, indicating clinically significant pain. Among those patients with concurrent pain at baseline, change from baseline to endpoint in the HAM-A total score (42.9% change in mean scores for duloxetine, 31.4% for placebo), HADS anxiety scale (40.3% vs. 22.8%), HADS depression scale (36.1% vs. 20.5%), HAM-A psychic factor (45.9% vs. 29.9%), and SDS global functional improvement score (45.5% vs. 22.1%) was significantly (all p's < .001) greater for duloxetine compared with placebo. Improvement on the CGI-I (p = .003) and PGI-I (p < .001) was also significantly greater for duloxetine. Response (HAM-A total score decrease ≥ 50%) (49% vs. 29%) and remission (HAM-A total score ≤ 7 at endpoint) (29% vs. 18%) rates were significantly greater for duloxetine compared with placebo (p < .001 and p = .041, respectively). Duloxetine demonstrated statistically significantly greater reduction in pain on all 6 VAS pain scales (all p's < .001 except headaches with p < .002) (for duloxetine, percent change in means from baseline to endpoint ranged from 40.1% to 45.2% across the 6 VAS scales; for placebo, 22.0% to 26.3%)., Conclusion: Duloxetine, relative to placebo, improves anxiety symptoms, pain, and functional impairment among patients with GAD with concurrent clinically significant pain., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00122824 (study 1) and NCT00475969 (study 2).

Background: We evaluated the comparative efficacy and safety of venlafaxine extended release (ER) and fluoxetine in the acute and continuation phases of treatment., Methods: In this multicenter, double-blind study, outpatients with recurrent unipolar major depression were randomly assigned to receive venlafaxine ER (75-300 mg/day; n = 821) or fluoxetine (20-60 mg/day; n = 275). After a 10-week acute treatment phase, responders entered a 6-month continuation phase of ongoing therapy with double-blind venlafaxine ER (n = 530) or fluoxetine (n = 185). In the acute phase, the primary outcome was response, defined as a 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) score < or =12 or > or =50% decrease from baseline; the secondary outcome was remission, defined as a HDRS score < or =7. In the continuation phase, the primary outcome was the proportion of patients who sustained response or remission. Secondary measures included time to onset of sustained response or remission (i.e., meeting criteria at two or more consecutive visits), relapse rates, and quality-of-life measures., Results: At the acute treatment phase end point, response rates were 79% for both venlafaxine ER and fluoxetine; remission rates were 49% and 50% for venlafaxine ER and fluoxetine, respectively. In the continuation phase, response rates were 90% and 92%, and remission rates were 72% and 69% for venlafaxine ER and fluoxetine, respectively. Rates of sustained remission at the end of the continuation phase were 52% and 58% for venlafaxine ER and fluoxetine, respectively., Conclusion: Venlafaxine ER and fluoxetine were comparably effective during both acute and continuation phase therapy.

Objective: To compare the effects of starting doses of duloxetine taken with or without food on tolerability and efficacy in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD)., Method: This double-blind, concurrent-dose-controlled, parallel-design trial contained a variable expected-duration placebo lead-in period and was conducted in adult outpatients with DSM-IV-TR-defined MDD at psychiatric outpatient sites between October 2004 and January 2006. In actuality, patients received placebo for 1 week and then were randomly assigned to duloxetine 30 mg once daily in the morning (q.a.m.) (N = 219), 30 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) (N = 213), or 60 mg q.a.m. (N = 215) for 1 week along with 1 of 2 instructions about food: take study drug with food or do not take within 1 hour of eating. For the remaining 5 weeks of acute treatment, all patients received 60 mg once daily. The primary objective was to compare incidence of treatment-emergent nausea at 30 mg q.a.m. versus 60 mg q.a.m. using item 112 (nausea) of the Association for Methodology and Documentation in Psychiatry adverse event scale (AMDP-5). Secondary outcome measures included mean change on AMDP-5 item 112, discontinuations due to adverse events, mean changes in AMDP-5 items and subscales, spontaneously reported treatment-emergent adverse events, and vital signs. Efficacy was evaluated by the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-17)., Results: The primary analysis, which combined data from both food groups, showed no significant difference in the incidence of nausea between starting doses of 30 mg q.a.m. and 60 mg q.a.m. (23% vs. 29%, respectively; p = .207). However, mean changes on the AMDP-5 nausea item revealed a significant main effect of food (p = .010) and a significant interaction between food and starting dose (p = .033). The food-by-dose interaction indicated that the benefit from taking drug with food was greatest in patients started at 60 mg q.a.m., and the benefit of starting at 30 mg q.a.m. was greatest in patients taking drug without food. In patients who took study drug without food, there was a significant difference across initial-dose groups for discontinuation due to adverse events (30 mg q.a.m. = 3.6%, 30 mg b.i.d. = 14.0%, 60 mg q.a.m. = 10.2%; 30 mg q.a.m. vs. 30 mg b.i.d., p = .008; 30 mg q.a.m. vs. 60 mg q.a.m., p = .066); however, in patients who took study drug with food, discontinuations due to adverse events did not significantly differ (30 mg q.a.m. = 5.4%, 30 mg b.i.d. = 7.5%, 60 mg q.a.m. = 7.4%; all p values > .50). Patients who started at 30 mg b.i.d. or 60 mg q.a.m. without food did not differ regarding mean changes (i.e., increases) in the common adverse events score after 1 week of treatment but had significantly greater mean changes than patients who started at 30 mg q.a.m. without food (0.87, 0.82, and 0, respectively; p < .05 vs. 30 mg b.i.d. and 60 mg q.a.m.). No significant differences were found between initial-dose groups in vital signs., Conclusions: These data imply that starting dulox-etine at 30 mg q.a.m. for 1 week with or without food or starting duloxetine at the therapeutic dose of 60 mg q.a.m. with food can improve the initial tolerability of the medication. Adding this information to existing knowledge of duloxetine will enable the clinician to tailor therapy most appropriately for the individual patient., Clinical Trials Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT 00191061.

Objective: Hormone-based contraceptives affect mood in healthy women or in women with premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD). No study has yet examined their association with mood in women with major depressive disorder (MDD). The purpose of this study was to determine whether estrogen-progestin combination or progestin-only contraceptives are associated with depression severity, function and quality of life, or general medical or psychiatric comorbidity in women with MDD., Methods: This analysis focused on a large population of female outpatients less than 40 years of age with non-psychotic MDD who were treated in 18 primary and 23 psychiatric care settings across the US, using data from the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study. Baseline demographic and clinical information was gathered and compared between three groups based on hormonal use: combination (estrogen-progestin)(N=232), progestin-only (N=58), and no hormone treatment (N=948)., Results: Caucasians were significantly more likely to use combined hormone contraception. Women on progestin-only had significantly more general medical comorbidities; greater hypersomnia, weight gain and gastrointestinal symptoms; and worse physical functioning than women in either of the other groups. Those on combined hormone contraception were significantly less depressed than those with no hormone treatment by the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Rated. The combined hormone group also demonstrated better physical functioning and less obsessive-compulsive disorder (COCD) comorbidity than either of the other groups., Conclusions: Synthetic estrogen and progestins may influence depressive and physical symptoms in depressed women.

Objective: To report second-year results from the 2-year maintenance phase of a long-term study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of venlafaxine extended release (ER) in preventing recurrence of depression., Method: Outpatients with recurrent unipolar depression (DSM-IV criteria; N = 1096) were randomly assigned in a 3:1 ratio to 10 weeks of treatment with venlafaxine ER or fluoxetine. Responders (17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HAM-D(17)] total score or= 50% decrease from baseline) entered a 6-month, double-blind continuation phase on the same medication. Continuation-phase responders were enrolled into maintenance treatment consisting of 2 consecutive 12-month phases. At the start of each maintenance phase, venlafaxine ER responders were randomly assigned to receive double-blind treatment with venlafaxine ER or placebo, and fluoxetine responders were continued for each period. The second 12-month maintenance phase compared the time to recurrence of depression with venlafaxine ER (75 to 300 mg/day) versus placebo as the primary efficacy measure. The primary definition of recurrence was a HAM-D(17) total score > 12 and < 50% reduction from baseline (acute phase) at 2 consecutive visits or at the last valid visit prior to discontinuation. The time to recurrence was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier methods and compared between the venlafaxine ER and placebo groups using log-rank tests. Secondary outcome measures included rates of response and remission (defined as HAM-D(17)

To determine whether age/gender-based differences in efficacy exist between bupropion and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for major depressive disorder, we pooled the findings of 10 double-blind studies comparing bupropion with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. Men (N=943) and women (N=1179) were divided into three age groups (younger than 40, 40-55, older than 55). Improvement in terms of the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, as well as the Bech melancholia, anxiety-somatization, and insomnia factors of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale was compared between the two treatment groups. Of 64 pair-wise comparisons, only one was statistically significant. Specifically, more women treated with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor experienced a 50% or greater decrease in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale Anxiety-Somatization scores (58.8 versus 63.8%, P=0.0394). No difference, however, was seen in the degree of resolution of Hamilton Depression Rating Scale Anxiety-Somatization scores (continuous measure) between women treated with bupropion versus a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (P=0.114). Bupropion and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, thus, appear to be equally effective in treating depressive symptoms, as well as anxious/somatic symptoms and insomnia in depression. No gender-related or age-related differences were found except that greater improvement was seen in anxious/somatic symptoms of depression among women during selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor treatment. This finding could, however, not be replicated when improvement in anxious/somatic symptoms was defined as a continuous measure.

Objectives: To test the long-term efficacy and safety of venlafaxine extended-release (ER) in preventing recurrence in patients with major depression., Method: This multiple-phase study, entitled "Prevention of Recurrent Episodes of Depression With Venlafaxine for Two Years" (PREVENT), was conducted from December 2000 through July 2005 in patients with recurrent unipolar depression (DSM-IV) who were initially randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with venlafaxine ER (75 mg/day to 300 mg/day) or fluoxetine (20 mg/day to 60 mg/day) for 10 weeks of acute treatment. Responders then received 6 months of continuation treatment. Those who remained responders were then enrolled into a 12-month maintenance period. Venlafaxine ER responders were randomly assigned to receive double-blind treatment with venlafaxine ER or placebo. Fluoxetine responders were not randomly assigned but continued taking fluoxetine in order to maintain the blind during the maintenance study. Time to recurrence of depression (17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression total score > 12 and < 50% reduction from acute phase baseline) with venlafaxine ER versus that of placebo were compared., Results: The efficacy evaluable sample consisted of 129 patients in each group. The mean daily dose of venlafaxine ER was 224.7 mg (SD = 66.7). The cumulative probability of recurrence through 12 months, based on the primary definition, was 23.1% (95% CI = 15.3 to 30.9) for venlafaxine ER and 42.0% (95% CI = 31.8 to 52.2) for placebo (p = .005, log-rank test)., Conclusion: Patients who had been successfully treated with venlafaxine ER during acute and continuation therapy were significantly less likely to experience recurrence with venlafaxine ER than with placebo over a 12-month maintenance treatment period., Clinical Trials Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00046020.

Objective: Acute worsening of depression can negatively impact the outcomes of clinical trials of antidepressants and patient compliance to treatment. We hypothesized that acute worsenings would be more frequent in premenopausal women, relative to men or postmenopausal women, and in women who had demonstrated premenstrual symptom exacerbations (PMEs) prior to treatment, relative to those who had demonstrated no PMEs., Method: Subjects diagnosed with DSM-III-R chronic major depressive disorder or double depression (dysthymia with concurrent major depressive episode) were randomly assigned between February 1993 and December 1994 to 12 weeks of double-blind treatment with flexibly-dosed sertraline or imipramine, with crossover to the alternate drug in the absence of response. A 6-point or more increase in the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression relative to the (7-14 day) previous visit defined worsening. PME was assessed through daily diaries prior to treatment., Results: There were 3582 evaluable visits attended by 554 subjects. Premenopausal women had a deteriorating depressive presentation at a greater proportion of their visits (8.6%) than did postmenopausal women (4.5%, p < .01) or men (5.9%, p < .01). The presence of PME at baseline was associated with more worsenings than the absence of PME (12.0% vs. 7.3%, p < .05). Results were similar whether the subject was treated with sertraline or imipramine. Nonresponse at treatment completion was more likely among subjects with worsening (p < .01). Dropouts were more likely than completers to have had an exacerbation at their terminal visit (p < .05)., Conclusion: Acute worsening of depression was associated with reproductive variables and negatively affected clinical trial outcomes including early treatment discontinuation and nonresponse.

Objective: In placebo-controlled clinical trials, duloxetine has been shown to be effective and well-tolerated in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). However, patients in registration trials may not be representative of patients in clinical practice. This study sought to assess the effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of duloxetine in diverse populations of outpatients with MDD., Method: This open-label study recruited out-patients ≥ 18 years of age with DSM-IV MDD in primary care or psychiatric practice settings and treated them with duloxetine 60 mg q.d. for 7 weeks. Primary outcome measures were (1) the physicianrated Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale, (2) the patient-rated 28-item Somatic Symptom Inventory (SSI-28) average, and (3) the patient-rated 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self Report. Quality of life, disability, and vital signs also were assessed. The first patient visit was August 16, 2004. The last patient visit was January 7, 2005., Results: Of 3543 outpatients enrolled, 3431 received at least 1 dose of duloxetine, of whom 71.4% completed the study. Most patients were Caucasian (90.8%) and female (75.4%); mean age was 48 years. Duloxetine significantly (p < .001) improved all efficacy measures in all treated patients as well as in subgroups based on gender, ethnic origin, age, and patient care setting. Except for the SSI-28 average, all the efficacy measures were in favor of female gender and primary care subgroups. Overall, 10.8% of patients discontinued due to adverse events., Conclusion: Duloxetine 60 mg q.d. was effective, regardless of gender, ethnic origin, age, and patient care settings, in this 7-week open-label study and was well-tolerated in a diverse population of outpatients with MDD., Clinical Trials Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00479726.

Recurrent major depressive disorder (MDD) is a common and disabling illness, but few studies have addressed long-term antidepressant treatment of recurrent MDD (ie, beyond 1 year of maintenance therapy) or compared the efficacy and safety of different antidepressant classes in this population. This article describes the rationale and design of a unique multi-phase trial in patients with recurrent MDD. The Prevention of Recurrent Episodes of Depression with Venlafaxine for Two Years (PREVENT) study is a large double-blind, randomized, multi-center trial designed to assess the long-term efficacy of venlafaxine extended release (ER) in the prevention of depressive recurrence. Approximately 1,100 adult outpatients with MDD and a history of >or=3 lifetime episodes (with at least two occurring in the past 5 years) were randomized to 10 weeks of acute-phase treatment with either venlafaxine ER 75-300 mg/day or fluoxetine 20-60 mg/day, followed by 6 months of continuation-phase treatment for patients experiencing a satisfactory therapeutic response or remission during the acute phase. Responders and remitters to continuation phase treatment were then entered into a 2-year maintenance phase study, in which those receiving venlafaxine ER were re-randomized to either venlafaxine ER or placebo at the start of two 12-month maintenance periods. Those taking fluoxetine during the acute and continuation phases continued to receive double-blind treatment with fluoxetine. This study will address several unanswered questions about the long-term treatment of recurrent MDD, such as whether extended maintenance treatment (ie, up to 2 years) lessens the risk for developing future depressive episodes; whether fluoxetine and venlafaxine ER are effective for both short- and long-term treatment of MDD; whether rates of tachyphylaxis differ between antidepressant classes; and whether the likelihood of depressive recurrence differs according to the time point when treatment is discontinued.

Background: Major depressive disorder is a recurrent illness that often requires maintenance antidepressant treatment. Escitalopram is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) that has shown efficacy in both acute and continuation treatment of major depressive disorder. The current trial examined the efficacy of maintenance escitalopram treatment in preventing depression recurrence in patients who responded to acute SSRI therapy., Method: Patients with recurrent DSM-IV-defined major depressive disorder (>or= 2 previous episodes; baseline Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] score >or= 22) who had responded (MADRS score or= 22 or insufficient therapeutic response during the double-blind phase. The study was conducted between October 16, 2000, and February 4, 2003., Results: A total of 234 patients who responded to acute open-label treatment with 1 of 4 SSRIs received at least 1 dose of open-label escitalopram continuation treatment. Of 164 patients who completed escitalopram continuation treatment, 139 were randomly assigned to double-blind maintenance treatment with escitalopram (N = 73) or placebo (N = 66). Mean baseline MADRS scores at the start of the maintenance phase were < 5 for both the placebo- and escitalopram-treatment groups. Time to recurrence was significantly longer in patients who received maintenance treatment with escitalopram compared with patients switched to placebo (hazard ratio = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.13 to 0.52, p < .001). Long-term escitalopram treatment was well tolerated., Conclusion: Maintenance treatment with escitalopram was well tolerated and significantly reduced the risk for recurrence of depression. Patients with few residual symptoms following continuation treatment with escitalopram experienced a high rate of depression recurrence when switched to placebo, demonstrating the need for maintenance therapy of recurrent major depressive disorder beyond 4 to 6 months of initial symptom resolution even if few residual symptoms are present.

Objective: Many studies have demonstrated the efficacy of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the treatment of premenstrual dysphoric disorder, but few studies have investigated the efficacy of SSRIs in the treatment of premenstrual syndrome (PMS). The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of sertraline in the treatment of moderate-to-severe PMS using 3 different dosing strategies: luteal phase (2 cycles), followed by continuous dosing throughout the month (1 cycle), followed by dosing begun at the first onset of PMS symptoms, or "symptom-onset" dosing (1 cycle)., Method: 314 women with PMS from 22 U.S. sites were randomly assigned to fixed-dose treatment with sertraline (25 or 50 mg/day) or placebo for 4 menstrual cycles after a single-blind, placebo lead-in cycle. Assessments included the Daily Symptom Report (DSR), the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness and -Improvement scales, the Patient Global Evaluation scale, the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire, and the Social Adjustment Scale-Self Report., Results: Intermittent luteal-phase dosing with low doses of sertraline (25 and 50 mg/day) produced significant improvement across 2 menstrual cycles, based on total DSR scores, compared with placebo. Continuous and symptom-onset dosing were also effective in treating PMS symptoms, particularly at the lower dose of 25 mg/day., Conclusions: The results of the current study suggest that low doses of sertraline may be a safe, effective, and well-tolerated treatment for moderate-to-severe PMS.

Background: While some studies have suggested sex differences in the efficacy of antidepressant medications, there have been few investigations into potential sex differences related to safety and/or tolerability. Pooled data from double-blind, placebo-controlled studies were utilized to assess the safety and tolerability of duloxetine in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in male and female patients., Methods: Safety data were pooled from seven double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of duloxetine. Patients (aged >or=18 years) meeting DSM-IV criteria for MDD received duloxetine (40-120 mg/day, male: N=318, female: N=578) or placebo (male: N=242, female: N=484) for up to 9 weeks. Safety was assessed using discontinuation rates, spontaneously reported treatment-emergent adverse events, changes in vital signs and laboratory analyses., Results: Discontinuation rates due to adverse events among duloxetine-treated patients were 18.6% for males and 13.5% for females. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events in both male and female patients included nausea, headache, dry mouth, diarrhea and constipation. The only event occurring at significantly different rates in male and female patients was nausea (Breslow Day p-value=0.008), and the significant difference was driven by a placebo nausea rate that was almost three times greater in females compared with males. No significant differential sex effects were found for pulse, blood pressure or weight. No laboratory analyte had an incidence of abnormal high or low values that differed significantly between male and female patients., Limitations: This was a post-hoc analysis of pooled data from acute phase clinical trials. Plasma concentrations of duloxetine were not obtained. Adverse event rates were based on spontaneous reports and differential dose-response effects were not evaluated., Conclusions: No evidence of clinically meaningful sex differences in the safety and tolerability of duloxetine were uncovered.

Objective: A number of studies have suggested potential gender differences in the efficacy of antidepressant medications. Pooled data from double-blind, placebo-controlled studies were utilized to compare the efficacy of duloxetine in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in male and female patients., Method: Efficacy data were pooled from 7 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of duloxetine. These studies represent all available data from U.S. acute-phase, placebo-controlled studies of duloxetine for the treatment of MDD. Patients (aged > or = 18 years) meeting DSM-IV criteria for MDD received duloxetine (40-120 mg/day; men, N = 318; women, N = 578) or placebo (men, N = 242; women, N = 484) for up to 9 weeks. Efficacy measures included the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D17) total score, HAM-D17 subscales (core, Maier, anxiety, retardation, sleep), the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale (CGI-S) and Patient Global Impression of Improvement scale (PGI-I), the Quality of Life in Depression Scale (QLDS), and Visual Analog Scales (VAS) for pain. The first patient visit was February 1, 1999, and the last patient visit was November 27, 2002., Results: In both male and female patients, duloxetine produced significantly greater improvement in HAM-D17, CGI-S, and PGI-I when compared with placebo (p < .05). Treatment-by-gender interactions did not reach statistical significance, indicating that the magnitude of duloxetine's treatment effects did not differ significantly between male and female patients. However, there was a trend for female patients to show a more robust response than male patients to both duloxetine and placebo. On the basis of VAS assessments of pain severity, duloxetine-treated female patients appeared to exhibit greater improvement than male patients, while women receiving placebo had smaller responses than placebo-treated men. Improvements in quality of life were significantly greater for both men (p = .006) and women (p = .001) receiving duloxetine than placebo and showed no significant difference by gender., Conclusion: In this analysis of pooled data, the efficacy of duloxetine did not differ significantly in male and female patients.

The hallmark feature of premenstrual syndrome (PMS) and premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) is the predictable, cyclic nature of symptoms or distinct on/offness that begins in the late luteal phase of the menstrual cycle and remits shortly after the onset of menstruation. PMDD is distinguished from PMS by the severity of symptoms, predominance of mood symptoms, and role dysfunction, particularly in personal relationships and marital/family domains. Several treatment modalities are beneficial in PMDD and severe PMS, but the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have emerged as first-line therapy. The SSRIs can be administered continuously throughout the entire month, intermittently from ovulation to the onset of menstruation, or semi-intermittently with dosage increases during the late luteal phase. These guidelines present practical treatment algorithms for the use of SSRIs in women with pure PMDD or severe PMS, PMDD and underlying subsyndromal clinical features of mood or anxiety, or premenstrual exacerbation of a mood/anxiety disorder.

Objective: To investigate whether differences in antidepressant efficacy are moderated by an interaction of age and gender., Methods: A pooled dataset from eight randomized, controlled trials of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) was reanalyzed to compare remission rates following therapy with venlafaxine (n = 851), one of several selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) (n = 748), or placebo (n = 446). Remission was defined as a final Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) score < or =7. Pairwise comparisons were conducted using stepwise multiple logistic regression models with main effect and interaction terms for treatment, sex, and age (younger: <50; older: > or =50). Among older women, the impact of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) on remission rates also was examined., Results: Remission rates on venlafaxine therapy were not affected by age, sex, or HRT use. Among women, but not men, there was a significant interaction reflecting poorer SSRI response in the older age group (Wald chi-square = 4.21, df = 1, p = 0.04); HRT appeared to eliminate this difference. Whereas the advantage in remission rates favoring venlafaxine was modest for men and younger women (6%-9%), the difference among older women not taking HRT was 23%., Conclusions: These findings provide further evidence that age, gender, and HRT moderate response to antidepressant medications.

Context: Although various strategies are available to manage nonresponders to an initial treatment for depression, no controlled trials address the utility of switching from an antidepressant medication to psychotherapy or vice versa., Objective: To compare the responses of chronically depressed nonresponders to 12 weeks of treatment with either nefazodone or cognitive behavioral analysis system of psychotherapy (CBASP) who were crossed over to the alternate treatment (nefazodone, n = 79; CBASP, n = 61)., Design: Crossover trial., Setting: Twelve academic outpatient psychiatric centers., Patients: There were 140 outpatients with chronic major depressive disorder; 92 (65.7%) were female, 126 (90.0%) were white, and the mean age was 43.1 years. Thirty participants dropped out of the study prematurely, 22 in the nefazodone group and 8 in the CBASP group., Interventions: Treatment lasted 12 weeks. The dosage of nefazodone was 100 to 600 mg/d; CBASP was provided twice weekly during weeks 1 through 4 and weekly thereafter., Main Outcome Measures: The 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, administered by raters blinded to treatment, the Clinician Global Impressions-Severity scale, and the 30-item Inventory for Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report., Results: Analysis of the intent-to-treat sample revealed that both the switch from nefazodone to CBASP and the switch from from CBASP to nefazodone resulted in clinically and statistically significant improvements in symptoms. Neither the rates of response nor the rates of remission were significantly different when the groups of completers were compared. However, the switch to CBASP following nefazodone therapy was associated with significantly less attrition due to adverse events, which may explain the higher intent-to-treat response rate among those crossed over to CBASP (57% vs 42%)., Conclusions: Among chronically depressed individuals, CBASP appears to be efficacious for nonresponders to nefazodone, and nefazodone appears to be effective for CBASP nonresponders. A switch from an antidepressant medication to psychotherapy or vice versa appears to be useful for nonresponders to the initial treatment.