Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Quantifying anxiety and depressive experiences permits individuals to calibrate where they are and monitor intervention-associated changes. eMindLog is a novel self-report measure for anxiety and depression that is grounded in psychology with an organizing structure based on neuroscience., Objective: Our aim was to explore the psychometric properties of eMindLog in a nonclinical sample of subjects., Methods: In a cross-sectional study of eMindLog, a convenience sample of 198 adults provided informed consent and completed eMindLog and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) as a reference. Brain systems (eg, negative and positive valence systems, cognitive systems) and their functional states that drive behavior are measured daily as emotions, thoughts, and behaviors. Associated symptoms, quality of life, and functioning are assessed weekly. eMindLog offers ease of use and expediency, using mobile technology across multiple platforms, with dashboard reporting of scores. It enhances precision by providing distinct, nonoverlapping description of terms, and accuracy through guidance for scoring severity., Results: eMindLog daily total score had a Cronbach alpha of .94. Pearson correlation coefficient for eMindLog indexes for anxiety and sadness/anhedonia were r=.66 (P<.001) and r=.62 (P<.001) contrasted with the HADS anxiety and depression subscales respectively. Of 195 subjects, 23 (11.8%) had cross-sectional symptoms above the threshold for Generalized Anxiety Disorder and 29 (29/195, 14.9%) for Major Depressive Disorder. Factor analysis supported the theoretically derived index derivatives for anxiety, anger, sadness, and anhedonia., Conclusions: eMindLog is a novel self-measurement tool to measure anxiety and depression, demonstrating excellent reliability and strong validity in a nonclinical population. Further studies in clinical populations are necessary for fuller validation of its psychometric properties. Self-measurement of anxiety and depressive symptoms with precision and accuracy has several potential benefits, including case detection, tracking change over time, efficacy assessment of interventions, and exploration of potential biomarkers., (©Thomas M Penders, Karl L Wuensch, Philip T Ninan. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (http://www.researchprotocols.org), 24.05.2017.)

Background: Bright light therapy has demonstrated efficacy and is an accepted treatment for seasonal depression. It has been suggested that bright light therapy may have efficacy in nonseasonal depressions. Also, there is evidence that bright light therapy may improve responsiveness to antidepressant pharmacotherapy., Data Sources: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, CINAHL, EMBASE, Scopus, and Academic OneFile for English-language literature published between January 1998 and April 2016, using the keywords bright light therapy AND major depression, bright light therapy AND depress*, bright light therapy AND bipolar depression, bright light therapy AND affective disorders, circadian rhythm AND major depression, circadian rhythm AND depress*, and circadian rhythm AND affective disorder., Study Selection and Data Extraction: Studies that reported randomized trials comparing antidepressant pharmacotherapy with bright light therapy ≥ 5,000 lux for ≥ 30 minutes to antidepressant pharmacotherapy without bright light therapy for the treatment of nonseasonal depression were included. Studies of seasonal depression were excluded. Following review of the initial 112 returns, 2 of the authors independently judged each trial, applying the inclusionary and exclusionary criteria. Ten studies were selected as meeting these criteria. Subjects in these studies were pooled using standard techniques of meta-analysis., Results: Ten studies involving 458 patients showed improvement using bright light therapy augmentation versus antidepressant pharmacotherapy alone. The effect size was similar to that of other accepted augmentation strategies, roughly 0.5., Conclusions: Analysis of pooled data from randomized trials provides evidence for the efficacy of use of bright light therapy ≥ 5,000 lux for periods ≥ 30 minutes when used as augmentation to standard antidepressant pharmacotherapy in the treatment of major depressive disorder and bipolar depression without a seasonal pattern., (© Copyright 2016 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)

Objective: The purpose of this post hoc analysis was to evaluate the incidence and timing of taper/posttherapy-emergent adverse events (TPAEs) following discontinuation of long-term treatment with desvenlafaxine (administered as desvenlafaxine succinate)., Method: This was a phase 4, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study conducted at 38 research centers within the United States between March 2010 and February 2011. Adult outpatients with major depressive disorder (MDD; DSM-IV-TR criteria) who completed 24 weeks of open-label treatment with desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups for the double-blind taper phase: desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d for 4 weeks (no discontinuation), desvenlafaxine 25 mg/d for 1 week followed by placebo for 3 weeks (taper), or placebo for 4 weeks (abrupt discontinuation). The primary endpoint, Discontinuation-Emergent Signs and Symptoms Scale (DESS) score over the first 2 weeks of the taper phase, was described previously. Secondary assessments included incidence and timing of TPAEs (any adverse event that started or increased in severity during the double-blind phase) and the percentage of patients who could not continue the taper phase due to discontinuation symptoms. The Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology Self-Report (QIDS-SR16) assessed MDD status., Results: A total of 480 patients enrolled in the open-label phase; the full analysis set included 357 patients (taper, n = 139; abrupt discontinuation, n = 146; no discontinuation, n = 72). TPAEs occurred in all groups through week 4. The incidence of any TPAE was lower for taper versus abrupt discontinuation at week 1 (P < .001), similar at week 2, and lower for taper versus abrupt discontinuation at weeks 3 and 4 (P ≤ .034). The most common TPAEs (incidence ≥ 3%) in the taper group were nausea and headache (3% each) at week 1 and dizziness (5%) and headache (4%) at week 2. The most common TPAEs in the abrupt discontinuation group were dizziness (8%), headache (8%), nausea (4%), irritability (3%), and diarrhea (3%) at week 1 and headache (3%) at weeks 2 and 3. The most common TPAE in the no discontinuation group was nausea (6%) at week 2., Conclusion: The overall incidence of any TPAE was lower in the taper versus abrupt discontinuation groups., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01056289.

The objective of this study was to determine whether the occurrence of discontinuation symptoms was equivalent for abrupt discontinuation versus 1-week taper to desvenlafaxine 25 mg/d after a 24-week treatment with desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d (administered as desvenlafaxine succinate) for major depressive disorder. Adult outpatients with major depressive disorder who completed the 24 weeks of open-label treatment with desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d were randomly assigned to no discontinuation (desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d), taper (desvenlafaxine 25 mg/d), or abrupt discontinuation (placebo) groups for the double-blind (DB) taper phase. The primary end point was Discontinuation-Emergent Signs and Symptoms (DESS) scale total score during the first 2 weeks of the DB phase. The null hypothesis that the absolute difference of greater than 2.5 in DESS scores between taper and abrupt discontinuation groups was tested by calculating the 95% 2-sided confidence interval on the mean difference between the 2 groups. Of the 480 patients enrolled in the open-label phase, 357 (≥1 postrandomization DESS record) were included in the primary analysis. Adjusted mean ± SE DESS scores were 4.1 ± 0.72 for no discontinuation (n = 72), 4.8 ± 0.54 for taper (n = 139), and 5.3 ± 0.52 for abrupt discontinuation (n = 146) groups. The difference in adjusted mean DESS total scores between the abrupt discontinuation and taper groups was 0.50 (95% confidence interval, -0.88 to 1.89) within the prespecified margin (±2.5) for equivalence. The number of patients who discontinued because of adverse events or discontinuation symptoms during the DB period was similar between the taper (2.8%) and abrupt discontinuation (2.1%) groups. These findings indicate that an abrupt discontinuation of desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d produces statistically equivalent DESS scores compared with the 1-week taper using 25 mg/d.

Background: Relationships between brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), interleukin (IL)-6, and salivary cortisol and both depression severity and treatment response were assessed in patients enrolled in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of desvenlafaxine 50mg/d for MDD., Methods: Outpatients with MDD were randomly assigned to 12weeks of double-blind treatment with desvenlafaxine 50mg/d or placebo (2:1). Baseline severity was assessed using the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D17); treatment response at week 12 was based on HAM-D17 total score and response and remission status. Saliva (cortisol) and blood (BDNF, IL-6) samples for biomarker assay were collected at baseline and week 12. Spearman correlations were calculated between the biomarkers at baseline, and between biomarkers and HAM-D17 total score at baseline. Logistic regression analyses were used to assess whether baseline biomarker levels predicted treatment response at week 12, with and without adjustment for baseline HAM-D17 score, treatment, and geographic region. Similarly, an analysis of covariance was used to assess whether baseline disease severity predicted biomarker change at week 12., Results: A total of 427 patients who received ≥1 dose of study drug and had baseline and ≥1 on-therapy primary efficacy evaluations were included in the analysis. At baseline, there was a statistically significant although weak correlation between levels of IL-6 and BDNF (Spearman correlation coefficient [rs]=0.120; P=0.014), but no significant correlation between baseline biomarker levels and baseline HAM-D17 total score (absolute value of all rs, ≤0.061). Desvenlafaxine 50mg/d treatment significantly reduced HAM-D17 total score from baseline at week 12 compared with placebo (P=0.006), but the three potential biomarkers did not predict treatment effects. No significant correlations were observed between the change from baseline in any biomarker level and change in HAM-D17 total score at week 12, either overall, or in desvenlafaxine or placebo groups (absolute value of all rs, 0.003-0.196). Baseline levels of BDNF, IL-6, and salivary cortisol did not significantly predict response to treatment at week 12. Although median increase in BDNF was not significantly different between desvenlafaxine (13.7%) and placebo (5.7%) groups, the increase was significantly greater (33.4% vs 4.3%; P=0.003) in patients with more severe depression at baseline (HAM-D17>22) vs those with less severe depression (HAM-D17≤22). No similar findings were observed for IL-6 or salivary cortisol., Discussion: Weak or no relationships were observed at baseline between the potential biomarkers or between biomarkers and disease severity. While baseline biomarker level did not predict treatment response, improvement in BDNF was significantly greater among patients who were more severely depressed at baseline., (© 2013.)

Objective: To evaluate the effects of sex and menopausal status on acute-, continuation-, and maintenance-phase treatment outcomes in patients with recurrent major depressive disorder (MDD)., Method: This was a secondary analysis of data from the Prevention of Recurrent Episodes of Depression With Venlafaxine for Two Years (PREVENT) trial, a multiphase, multicenter, double-blind study in which adult outpatients with recurrent MDD (by DSM-IV criteria) were randomly assigned to 10 weeks of acute-phase venlafaxine extended release (ER) (75-300 mg/d) or fluoxetine (20-60 mg/d). Patients achieving response or remission had 6 months of continuation-phase treatment. Responding or remitting patients in the venlafaxine ER group were randomly assigned to venlafaxine ER or placebo for 2 consecutive 12-month maintenance phases; fluoxetine-treated patients continued receiving fluoxetine. The outcome measures for this analysis were acute- and continuation-phase response and remission rates (as measured by the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale) and time to depression recurrence in the maintenance phases according to sex and menopausal status at baseline., Results: The intent-to-treat population comprised 781 patients in the venlafaxine ER group (65% women) and 266 patients in the fluoxetine group (61% women); 64% of all women were premenopausal, and 25% were postmenopausal (5% perimenopausal; not analyzed). At acute-phase end, remission rates in the venlafaxine ER vs fluoxetine groups were 44% vs 47% in men, 51% vs 52% in women, 50% vs 52% in premenopausal women, and 52% vs 55% in postmenopausal women. At continuation-phase end, remission rates in the venlafaxine ER vs fluoxetine groups were 71% vs 74% in men, 72% vs 67% in women, 72% vs 69% in premenopausal women and 71% vs 63% in postmenopausal women. Response rates were consistent with these findings. Based on a Cox proportional hazards model, sex was not a significant predictor of recurrence during the first or second maintenance phase (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.233; P = .3712 and HR = 1.103; P = .8075, respectively), and neither was menopausal status at acute-phase baseline (HR = 0.941; P = .8234 and HR = 0.531; P = .2065, respectively)., Conclusions: In this study of patients with recurrent MDD, treatment outcomes with venlafaxine ER and fluoxetine did not differ on the basis of sex or menopausal status. Our confidence in these findings is limited by the lack of a placebo arm during the acute and continuation phases and by the small sample sizes for subgroup analyses in the maintenance phases., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00046020., (© Copyright 2014 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)

Objective: Evaluate the 8-week efficacy and safety of desvenlafaxine at the recommended dose of 50 mg/d in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women with major depressive disorder (MDD) based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision., Method: This phase 4, multicenter, parallel-group, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted from June 30, 2010, to June 8, 2011. Patients received placebo or desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d (1:1 ratio; n = 217 in each group). The primary outcome measure was the change at week 8 in the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS17) total score. Secondary outcome measures included change in the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scale (CGI-I), the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), and the Visual Analog Scale-Pain Intensity (VAS-PI)., Results: At end point, compared to placebo, desvenlafaxine was associated with a significantly greater decrease in HDRS17 total scores (last-observation-carried-forward analysis; adjusted mean change from baseline -9.9 vs -8.1, respectively; P = .004) and significant improvements on the CGI-I (P < .001), MADRS (P = .002), SDS (P = .038), and VAS-PI (P < .001). Improvements on the SDS and VAS-PI reached significance by week 2. Desvenlafaxine was generally safe and well tolerated., Conclusions: Short-term treatment with desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d was effective for the treatment of MDD in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women, with significant benefits on pain and functional outcomes evident as early as week 2. The safety and tolerability of desvenlafaxine were consistent with data in other populations., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01121484., (© Copyright 2013 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)

The incidence of treatment-emergent sexual dysfunction in the acute and continuation phases of the prevention of recurrent episodes of depression with venlafaxine ER for two years (PREVENT) study was assessed. Adult outpatients with recurrent major depressive disorder were randomly assigned to receive venlafaxine extended release (ER; 75-300 mg/day) or fluoxetine (20-60 mg/day). Sexual dysfunction was assessed using items from the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D(17)) and the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report (IDS-SR). The baseline rates of sexual dysfunction based on the HAM-D(17) and IDS-SR items were 57.9% and 48.8%, respectively. The rates of new-onset sexual dysfunction for the venlafaxine ER-treated (44.8%, HAM-D(17); 38.4%, IDS-SR) and fluoxetine-treated patients (52.9%, HAM-D(17); 50.0%, IDS-SR) were similar; approximately 80% of the cases resolved during treatment. Treatment response was associated with lower rates of new-onset sexual dysfunction compared with nonresponse. The patients who remitted were the least likely to experience sexual dysfunction during antidepressant treatment.

Variability in placebo response greatly complicates the design, conduct, and interpretation of clinical trials of antidepressant medications. To identify factors that impact detection of antidepressant-placebo differences, we conducted a meta-analysis of all relevant phase II-IV clinical trials for major depressive disorder conducted by the manufacturer of venlafaxine and desvenlafaxine completed by March 2011. We examined 15 factors potentially relevant to trial outcomes, using the standardized mean difference on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D₁₇) score as the primary outcome. Thirty trials comprising 8933 patients were included. In univariate analyses, antidepressant efficacy (ie, drug vs placebo difference) was predicted most strongly (β=3.74, p=0.0002) by the proportion of patients in the trial enrolled from academic sites. Other factors predicting larger drug-placebo differences included lower participant completion rate, fewer post-baseline study visits, earlier year of study, and study drug (venlafaxine>desvenlafaxine). In multivariate meta-regression modeling, only the proportion of patients from academic sites maintained statistical significance as a predictor of drug-placebo separation for both HAM-D₁₇ continuous score change (β=2.24, p=0.034) and response rate (β=2.26, p=0.035). Including a higher proportion of academic sites may increase the ability to detect differences between active drug and placebo in clinical trials of major depressive disorder.

Objective: To determine whether the combination of triiodothyronine (T3) plus sertraline at treatment initiation confers greater antidepressant efficacy than sertraline plus placebo in patients with major depressive disorder., Method: Eight-week, double blind, randomized placebo controlled clinical trial of 153 adult outpatients between 18 and 60 years of age, with DSM-IV defined major depressive disorder. Patients were treated with sertraline flexibly adjusted for tolerability and in a double blind fashion with placebo or T3 (25 μg/day in week 1 and increasing to 50 μg/day in week 2). Response was defined categorically as 50% reduction and total score less than 15 in 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD-21) at week 8 and remission as HRSD-21 less than 8., Results: There was no difference between treatment groups at final assessment; 65% of placebo and 61.8% of T3 treated subjects achieved response and 50.6% of placebo and 40.8% of T3 treated patients achieved remission. The mean daily dose at final assessment of sertraline and T3, respectively was 144.7 mg (± 48.7 mg) and 48.2 μg (± 7 μg). Median time to response did not differ between treatment groups. Baseline thyroid function tests did not predict response to sertraline treatment or T3 augmentation., Conclusions: These results do not support the routine use of T3 to enhance or accelerate onset of antidepressant response in patients with major depressive disorder., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In contrast to "remission" from an episode of major depressive disorder (MDD), for which there is general agreement in the literature, the optimal definition of "recovery" from MDD is uncertain. Previous definitions of recovery have used inconsistent thresholds for symptom severity and duration of wellness. To address the effects of duration and degree of recovery from an episode of MDD on recurrence risk, and the impact of maintenance antidepressant treatment on recurrence, we analyzed 258 patients from a randomized, double-blind study of outpatients with recurrent MDD. All patients had responded to 8½ months of venlafaxine extended release and were subsequently randomized to receive venlafaxine ER or placebo during 2 consecutive 12-month maintenance phases. Four definitions of recovery were used to evaluate recovery rates and time to recurrence: (1) 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D(17)) total score ≤3 with duration ≥120 days; (2) HAM-D(17) ≤3 with duration ≥56 days; (3) HAM-D(17) ≤7 with duration ≥120 days; and (4) HAM-D(17) ≤7 with duration ≥56 days. Recovery definitions using lower symptom severity and longer duration thresholds produced lower rates of recurrence. Patients on placebo were more likely to have a recurrence than patients on venlafaxine ER, with hazard ratio (HR) ranging from 2.5 among patients who recovered by the most relaxed criteria (definition 4), to 5.3 among patients who recovered by the most stringent criteria (definition 1). We conclude that protection against recurrence derives from the degree and duration of recovery, particularly for patients maintained on antidepressant medication., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: This post hoc analysis examined efficacy and tolerability of open-label desvenlafaxine in patients with major depressive disorder switched from blinded placebo, venlafaxine extended release (ER), or desvenlafaxine., Research Design and Methods: Patients who completed 8 weeks of double-blind therapy with placebo (n = 176), venlafaxine ER (n = 175), or desvenlafaxine (n = 143) enrolled in a 10-month, open-label extension study and received desvenlafaxine 200 to 400 mg/d. Efficacy (17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HDRS(17)]) was assessed separately for nonresponders and responders to double-blind treatment. Tolerability during the first month of open-label desvenlafaxine was assessed., Results: Among nonresponders (n = 134) to double-blind placebo, venlafaxine ER, and desvenlafaxine, mean decreases in HDRS(17) scores were -10.9, -7.3, and -7.7, respectively; HDRS(17) response rates were 67%, 53%, and 48%, respectively. Although responders (n = 360) to double-blind placebo, venlafaxine ER, and desvenlafaxine had more modest decreases on the HDRS(17), response rates were higher (84%, 87%, and 83%, respectively). Rates of adverse events were highest during week 1, and decreased afterward for the remainder of the first month of treatment., Conclusions: Among nonresponders to 8 weeks of double-blind venlafaxine ER, desvenlafaxine, or placebo, 48% to 67% subsequently responded to open-label desvenlafaxine. Over 80% of responders to double-blind therapy maintained response on open-label desvenlafaxine. The switch from venlafaxine ER to desvenlafaxine was well tolerated.

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.

Background: This randomized, open-label, rater-blinded, multicenter study compared treatment outcomes with the serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) venlafaxine extended release (ER) with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in primary care patients with major depressive disorder., Method: Study data were collected from November 29, 2000, to March 4, 2003. Outpatients who met diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder according to the Mental Health Screener, a computer-administered telephone interview program that screens for the most common mental disorders, and had a total score on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS(17)) ≥ 20 were randomly assigned to receive up to 6 months of open-label venlafaxine ER 75-225 mg/d (n = 688) or an SSRI (n = 697): fluoxetine 20-80 mg/d, paroxetine 20-50 mg/d, citalopram 20-40 mg/d, and sertraline 50-200 mg/d. The primary outcome was remission (HDRS(17) score ≤ 7) at study end point using the last-observation-carried-forward method to account for early termination. A mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis evaluated secondary outcome measures., Results: Fifty-one percent of patients completed the study. Month 6 remission rates did not differ significantly for venlafaxine ER and the SSRIs (35.5% vs 32.0%, respectively; P = .195). The MMRM analysis of HDRS(17) scores also did not differ significantly (P = .0538). Significant treatment effects favoring the venlafaxine ER group were observed for remission rates at days 30, 60, 90, and 135 and a survival analysis of time to remission (P = .006), as well as Clinical Global Impressions-severity of illness scale (P = .0002); Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Anxiety subscale (P = .03); 6-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Bech version (P = .009); and Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report (P = .0003)., Conclusions: Remission rates for patients treated with venlafaxine ER or an SSRI did not differ significantly after 6 months of treatment. Results of most secondary analyses suggested that SNRI treatment had a greater antidepressant effect versus the SSRIs studied.

Introduction: Venlafaxine, a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor antidepressant, is metabolized primarily by the cytochrome P450 2D6 enzyme into O-desmethylvenlafaxine (ODV). The ODV/venlafaxine ratio can be used to distinguish between extensive metabolizers (EMs) and poor metabolizers (PMs)., Objectives: To determine the relative efficacy and tolerability of venlafaxine in EM vs PM patients with major depressive disorder (MDD)., Method: Data from 4 double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of patients with MDD were pooled. Blood samples were analyzed for plasma concentrations of venlafaxine, ODV, total venlafaxine + ODV, and ODV/venlafaxine ratio. Patients were classified as EMs or PMs on the basis of ODV/venlafaxine ratios. Changes from baseline in depression scale scores were compared between EMs and PMs using t tests. Rates of response, remission, discontinuation, and adverse events (AEs) were compared for EMs and PMs using Fisher exact tests., Results: Compared with PMs, EMs had significantly greater mean changes from baseline on 4 of 5 depression rating scales (all 4 comparisons, P ≤ .020). A significantly greater percentage of EMs achieved response or remission by most measures compared with PMs (4 of 5 comparisons, P ≤ .015). Rates of discontinuation and AEs did not differ significantly between EMs and PMs. Since there were no substantial differences between EMs and PMs in terms of venlafaxine dose or tolerability, these factors are not likely to account for the efficacy findings., Conclusions: Venlafaxine treatment in EMs was associated with greater efficacy in MDD on virtually all measures compared with PMs, with no important tolerability differences., (© Copyright 2010 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)

The objective of this analysis was to assess the risk of increased suicidal thoughts and behavior (suicidality) with desvenlafaxine (administered as desvenlafaxine succinate) in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). Data from 9 double-blind, 8-week studies in outpatients with MDD were analyzed retrospectively. Patients were randomly assigned to desvenlafaxine (n = 1834) or placebo (n = 1116). Adverse events (AEs) related to suicidality were identified by searching the AE database for text strings possibly related to suicidality; false positives were excluded. Narratives for each case were prepared and blinded for review. Events were classified according to the Columbia Classification Algorithm of Suicide Assessment. Odds ratios were calculated; chi tests were used to compare treatment groups. Occurrence of emerging or worsening suicidality, based on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression suicide item, was compared for desvenlafaxine and placebo using chi tests. In all, 17 (0.93%) of 1834 patients receiving desvenlafaxine and 8 (0.72%) of 1116 receiving placebo reported possible suicidality-related AEs. Events were relatively evenly distributed across treatment groups. One patient randomly assigned to desvenlafaxine treatment died of completed suicide during the on-therapy period. There were no significant differences between groups in the risk for any class of suicide-related events, including completed suicide or suicide attempt. Odds of emergence or worsening of suicidality 17-item (Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression suicide item) did not differ significantly between treatment groups. No evidence of a signal for increased suicidality was detected in adult patients treated with desvenlafaxine in short-term MDD trials. As suicidal events were extremely rare, a true increased risk cannot be ruled out.

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.

Objective: To characterize weight change during short- and longer-term treatment with desvenlafaxine (administered as desvenlafaxine succinate) for major depressive disorder (MDD)., Method: 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.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.

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: 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: 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.

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: 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: 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.

Background: The development of new antidepressant drugs has reached a plateau. There is an unmet need for faster, better, and safer medications, but as placebo-response rates rise, effect sizes shrink, and more studies fail or are negative, pharmaceutical companies are increasingly reluctant to invest in new drug development because of the risk of failure. In the absence of an identifiable human pathophysiology that can be modeled in preclinical studies, the principal point of leverage to move beyond the present dilemma may be improving the information gleaned from well-designed proof-of-concept (POC) studies of new antidepressant drugs with novel central nervous system effects. With this in mind, a group of experts was convened under the auspices of the University of Arizona Department of Psychiatry and Best Practice Project Management, Inc., Participants: Forty-five experts in the study of antidepressant drugs from academia, government (U.S. Food and Drug Administration and National Institute of Mental Health), and industry participated. EVIDENCE/CONSENSUS PROCESS: In order to define the state of clinical trials methodology in the antidepressant area, and to chart a way forward, a 2-day consensus conference was held June 21-22, 2007, in Bethesda, Md., at which careful reviews of the literature were presented for discussion. Following the presentations, participants were divided into 3 workgroups and asked to address a series of separate questions related to methodology in POC studies. The goals were to review the history of antidepressant drug trials, discuss ways to improve study design and data analysis, and plan more informative POC studies., Conclusions: The participants concluded that the federal government, academic centers, and the pharmaceutical industry need to collaborate on establishing a network of sites at which small, POC studies can be conducted and resulting data can be shared. New technologies to analyze and measure the major affective, cognitive, and behavioral components of depression in relationship to potential biomarkers of response should be incorporated. Standard assessment instruments should be employed across studies to allow for future meta-analyses, but new instruments should be developed to differentiate subtypes and symptom clusters within the disorder that might respond differently to treatment. Better early-stage POC studies are needed and should be able to amplify the signal strength of drug efficacy and enhance the quality of information in clinical trials of new medications with novel pharmacologic profiles., (Copyright 2008 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)

Background: Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is an effective anticonvulsant device and has shown antidepressant effects in chronic treatment resistant depression. Because the vagus nerve sends information to brain regions important in anxiety regulation (locus coeruleus, orbitofrontal cortex, insula, hippocampus and amygdala), this pathway might be involved in perceiving or manifesting various somatic and cognitive symptoms that characterize anxiety disorders. On the basis of this reasoning and reports of anxiolytic effects of VNS in patients treated for epilepsy and depression, we organized an open-label pilot acute trial of adjunctive VNS on top of stable medications, followed by long-term follow-up, to assess the safety and potential efficacy of VNS for patients with treatment resistant anxiety disorders., Methods: Eleven adult outpatients with treatment resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), panic disorder (PD), or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) were recruited. Patients had failed several medication trials as well as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). All patients were rated with the Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) and the clinical global impressions improvement scale (CGI-I). Patients with OCD were also rated with the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS). Patients were maintained on their current psychotropic medications at fixed doses during the acute 12-week phase. Changes in medications and VNS stimulus parameters were allowed during the long-term follow-up. Response was defined as a 50% or greater improvement on the HAM-A for all patients and a 25% or greater improvement on the Y-BOCS for patients with OCD., Results: Eleven patients were recruited. Seven patients had a primary diagnosis of OCD, two had PTSD, and one had PD. One OCD patient changed their mind and was never implanted. One patient with OCD withdrew consent before the end of the acute phase, so long-term results were available for nine patients. Three patients were acute responders, based on the HAM-A, and there was some improvement in anxiety ratings over time (with statistically significant improvements at 14 of 18 quarters during long-term follow-up). Of the seven patients with OCD who received stimulation, three were acute responders, based on the Y-BOCS, and there was some improvement in Y-BOCS scores over time (with statistically significant improvements at 7 of 18 quarters during long-term follow-up). VNS was relatively well tolerated. Four years after implantation, four patients (diagnoses two OCD, one PD, one PTSD) were still receiving VNS with continued and sustained improvement in anxiety scores compared with their baseline scores., Conclusions: These patients with treatment-resistant anxiety disorders generally tolerated VNS treatment, and there was evidence of acute and long-term improvement in some patients. These open data suggest that further double-blind studies assessing the VNS role in treating anxiety disorders, particularly OCD, may be warranted.

Unlabelled: This report presents the rationale, design, and baseline sample characteristics for the REVAMP study. This project is a multisite clinical trial designed to evaluate the efficacy of augmenting state-of-the-art pharmacotherapy with psychotherapy in chronically depressed patients who fail to respond or respond incompletely to an initial trial of antidepressant medication., Background: Chronic forms of major depression disorder (cMDD) are longitudinally continuous forms of major depressive disorder (MDD), and may account for a significant portion of the societal burden of disease associated with M D D. Antidepressant medications and depression-focused psychotherapies have been shown to be effective for cMDD, though the majority fail to achieve remission following an acute course of treatment. There is a pressing need to evaluate whether the outcomes obtained from a well implemented medication algorithm combined with depression-focused psychotherapy can significantly enhance outcomes for cMDD., Rationale: Although there is evidence for the effectiveness of depression-focused psychotherapy for the treatment of cMDD, this is the first prospective, randomized, controlled trial investigating psychotherapy as an augmentation strategy for patients with cMDD incompletely responsive to a trial of antidepressant medication., Specific Aims: The REVAMP study has three specific aims: first, to compare the efficacy of adding psychotherapy to a medication change versus changing medication alone in chronic depressives with partial response or nonresponse to an initial trial of antidepressant medication; second, to test efficacy of the Cognitive Behavioral Analysis System of Psychotherapy (CBASP) as an augmentation strategy by comparing it to Supportive Psychotherapy (SP); and third, to test a hypothesized mechanism of therapeutic action of CBASP by examining whether patients receiving CBASP exhibit significantly greater improvements in social problem solving than patients receiving adjunctive SP or continued medication alone. As a subsidiary aim, the study also compares the effects of the three randomized treatments on psychosocial outcomes., Design: The study involves two 12-week phases. During Phase 1, patients with cMDD receive antidepressant monotherapy selected according to an algorithm that takes into account their prior treatment history. Their pattern of response is evaluated, those with no response at 8 weeks or less than a full response at 12 weeks advance to Phase 2. At the beginning of Phase 2, patients who did not respond to the initial antidepressant monotherapy during Phase 1 are switched to the next medication in the pharmacotherapy algorithm and randomly assigned in a 2:2:1 ratio to one of three treatment cells: 16 sessions of either CBASP (40% of randomizations) or SP (40%) added to pharmacotherapy, or medication alone (20%) with no added psychotherapy. Similarly, patients achieving a partial response during Phase 1 have their initial medication augmented with a second antidepressant agent during Phase 2 and are randomly assigned to either CBASP, SP, or medication alone. Patients who achieve remission during Phase 1 are not randomized to Phase 2, but rather are monitored monthly for an additional 12 weeks., Comment: Recent sequential treatment studies have provided state-of-the-art knowledge about the need for multiple steps in order to achieve remission. The current study, therefore, provides an important next step in understanding the role of depression-focused psychotherapy in a treatment algorithm so essential in the management of difficult-to-treat depression such as chronic forms of major depression.

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.

Background: Previous studies suggest that adjunctive modafinil treatment provides benefit for patients with depression with significant sleepiness and fatigue., Methods: We conducted a multisite, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the treatment of major depression characterized by excessive sleepiness and fatigue, adding adjunctive modafinil or placebo to a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor from the beginning of treatment. Seventy-three of 90 consenting patients met all screening criteria to begin treatment with open-label selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor therapy and double-blind addition of either modafinil (100 mg/d for 1 week then 200 mg/d) or matching placebo for 6 weeks., Results: Mixed-model analysis of the change in the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, the primary outcome measure, showed no difference between modafinil- and placebo-treated patients. However, the hypersomnia items on the 31-item Hamilton Depression Scale were significantly more improved with modafinil than placebo. The total 31-item Hamilton Depression Scale score was significantly better with modafinil than placebo at Weeks 4 and 5, but not at the final study visit. There was no difference in dropout rates caused by adverse events, but 2 patients in the modafinil-treated group developed new onset or worsening of suicidal ideation, leading to the trial being discontinued prematurely., Conclusions: Power to detect differences between modafinil and placebo was limited because of the premature discontinuation of the trial. Although modafinil did not show evidence of benefit over placebo on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, secondary measures suggested modafinil may have provided benefit for symptoms of excessive sleepiness in patients with depression.

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)

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.

Tiagabine, a selective gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) reuptake inhibitor was evaluated for the treatment of patients with social anxiety disorder (SAD). Adults with SAD received open-label tiagabine 4-16 mg per day for 12 weeks. Intent-to-treat data are available for 54 patients with improvement demonstrated in Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale, Clinician Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) and -Improvement (CGI-I), Social Phobia Inventory, and Sheehan Disability Scale scores. In all, 40.7% (22/54) of the intent to treat sample and 63.0% (17/27) of the completer sample were considered CGI responders (CGI-I score of one or two). Tiagabine was generally well tolerated. Results of this pilot study suggest that tiagabine may be an option for the treatment of patients with SAD. Larger, controlled studies are required to fully elucidate the potential of tiagabine for the treatment of SAD., (Copyright (c) 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Objective: The authors describe the use of dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) in treating borderline personality disorder during psychiatry residency, and assess the status of DBT education within psychiatry residencies in the United States., Method: The authors present a patient with borderline personality disorder treated by a resident using DBT, along with perspectives from the resident's supervisors. Additionally, self-report surveys inquiring about the attitudes and experiences of residency directors and PGY-4 residents regarding DBT were sent to program directors with available e-mail addresses on FREIDA online., Results: The DBT method employed by the resident had to be modified to fit the constraints of a residency program. The patient in therapy had a tumultuous course, ultimately resulting in the discontinuation of treatment. Survey results suggested an underemphasis on the education and use of DBT during residency, though the strength of this conclusion is limited by the small proportion of surveys returned., Conclusions: Achieving the efficacy of DBT-based treatment of borderline personality disorder reported in the literature in the setting of a residency program is challenging. Greater exposure to DBT during residency may increase residents' skills in using the technique and the likelihood that they will use it after residency.

This report summarizes recommendations from the ACNP Task Force on the conceptualization of remission and its implications for defining recovery, relapse, recurrence, and response for clinical investigators and practicing clinicians. Given the strong implications of remission for better function and a better prognosis, remission is a valid, clinically relevant end point for both practitioners and investigators. Not all depressed patients, however, will reach remission. Response is a less desirable primary outcome in trials because it depends highly on the initial (often single) baseline measure of symptom severity. It is recommended that remission be ascribed after 3 consecutive weeks during which minimal symptom status (absence of both sadness and reduced interest/pleasure along with the presence of fewer than three of the remaining seven DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criterion symptoms) is maintained. Once achieved, remission can only be lost if followed by a relapse. Recovery is ascribed after at least 4 months following the onset of remission, during which a relapse has not occurred. Recovery, once achieved, can only be lost if followed by a recurrence. Day-to-day functioning and quality of life are important secondary end points, but they were not included in the proposed definitions of response, remission, recovery, relapse, or recurrence. These recommendations suggest that symptom ratings that measure all nine criterion symptom domains to define a major depressive episode are preferred as they provide a more certain ascertainment of remission. These recommendations were based largely on logic, the need for internal consistency, and clinical experience owing to the lack of empirical evidence to test these concepts. Research to evaluate these recommendations empirically is needed.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of high-dose sertraline for patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) who failed to respond to standard sertraline acute treatment., Method: Sixty-six nonresponders to 16 weeks of sertraline treatment who met DSM-III-R criteria for current OCD were randomly assigned, in a double-blind continuation phase of a multicenter trial, either to continue on 200 mg/day of sertraline or to increase their dose to between 250 and 400 mg/day for 12 additional weeks. Efficacy measures included the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (YBOCS), the National Institute of Mental Health Global Obsessive Compulsive Scale (NIMH Global OC Scale), and the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness and -Improvement (CGI-I) scales. Data were collected from July 26, 1994, to October 26, 1995., Results: The high-dose (250-400 mg/day, mean final dose = 357, SD = 60, N = 30) group showed significantly greater symptom improvement than the 200-mg/day group (N = 36) as measured by the YBOCS (p = .033), NIMH Global OC Scale (p = .003), and CGI-I (p = .011). Responder rates (decrease in YBOCS score of > or = 25% and a CGI-I rating < or = 3) were not significantly different for the 200-mg/day versus the high-dose sertraline group, either on completer analysis, 34% versus 52%, or on endpoint analysis, 33% versus 40%. Both treatments showed similar adverse event rates., Conclusion: Greater symptom improvement was seen in the high-dose sertraline group compared to the 200-mg/day dose group during continuation treatment. Both dosages yielded similar safety profiles. Administration of higher than labeled doses of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors may be a treatment option for certain OCD patients who fail to respond to standard acute treatment.

Social anxiety disorder (SAD) is a common, chronic psychiatric disorder characterized by a persistent fear of social or performance situations in which embarrassment can occur. This disorder typically appears during the mid-adolescent years and is unremitting throughout life if not properly treated. SAD presents as two subtypes: the more common and debilitating generalized form, and the nongeneralized form, which consists predominantly of performance anxiety. The majority of patients with SAD have comorbid mental disorders, including mood, anxiety, and substance abuse. No single development theory has been proposed to account for the origins of SAD, although current understanding of the etiology of SAD posits an interaction between psychological and biological factors. Risk factors include environmental and parenting influences and dysfunctional cognitive and conditioning events in early childhood. The neurobiology of SAD appears to involve neurochemical dysfunction, as evidenced by studies of neuroreceptor imaging, neuroendocrine function, and profiles of response to specific medications. Clinical trials have demonstrated that benzodiazepines and antidepressants are effective in the treatment of SAD. The selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are emerging as the first-line treatment for SAD, based on their proven safety, tolerability, and efficacy. Goals for ongoing future research include development of approaches to achieve remission, to convert nonresponders and partial responders to full responders, and to prevent relapse and maintain long-term efficacy. This monograph explores the epidemiology, clinical presentation, and differential diagnosis of SAD, with a focus on neural circuitry of social relationships and neurochemical dysfunction. The prevalence, rates of recognition and treatment, patterns of comorbidity, quality-of-life issues, and natural history of SAD are discussed as well as pharmacologic and psychosocial treatment strategies for SAD.

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.

Panic disorder entered the psychiatric nomenclature a quarter-century ago, and an explosion of studies followed. Defining the core phenomenology of panic disorder can be advanced by an understanding of its pathophysiology and exploration of its etiology. The lessons learned can guide the delivery of treatments to enhance the likelihood of achieving remission and the discovery of novel treatments for panic disorder.

Background: Benefit from selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) treatment in major depressive disorder (MDD) usually takes several weeks. Typically, a third of patients achieve remission and roughly half achieve response with acute treatment. This open-label study evaluated the efficacy and safety of modafinil treatment initiated with an SSRI in patients with MDD and fatigue., Method: Twenty-nine patients with DSM-IV MDD, free from antidepressant therapy (> or = 4 weeks), were administered modafinil (titrated to 200 mg/day) and fluoxetine or paroxetine (20 mg/day) for 6 weeks. Assessments included the 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), Structured Interview Guide for the HAM-D (SIGH-D), Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS). The SIGH-D ratings were videotaped and rated by an independent rater masked to the visit schedule. Data were collected from August 2002 through March 2003., Results: Modafinil combined with an SSRI at treatment initiation significantly improved mean total SIGH-D scores within 1 week (-9.3, p <.001), and this improvement was progressive throughout the study (-21.2 at week 6, p <.001). Forty-two percent (11 of 26) and 79% (19 of 24) of patients were responders, and 39% (10 of 26) and 58% (14 of 24) of patients were remitters (HAM-D) by week 2 and week 6, respectively. Adjunct modafinil rapidly and significantly reduced fatigue (FSS score reduction from baseline = 0.7 at week 1, p <.01) and improved wakefulness (ESS score reduction from baseline = 3.6 at week 1, p <.01). The combination caused few adverse events, with nausea and headache being the most common., Conclusion: Modafinil combined with an SSRI at treatment initiation may enhance the onset and degree of symptom benefit in patients with MDD and fatigue. Treatment with adjunct modafinil was generally well tolerated, with most adverse effects being mild or moderate in severity.

Major depressive disorder is associated with considerable morbidity, disability, and risk for suicide. Treatments for depression most commonly include antidepressants, psychotherapy, or the combination. Little is known about predictors of treatment response for depression. In this study, 681 patients with chronic forms of major depression were treated with an antidepressant (nefazodone), Cognitive Behavioral Analysis System of Psychotherapy (CBASP), or the combination. Overall, the effects of the antidepressant alone and psychotherapy alone were equal and significantly less effective than combination treatment. Among those with a history of early childhood trauma (loss of parents at an early age, physical or sexual abuse, or neglect), psychotherapy alone was superior to antidepressant monotherapy. Moreover, the combination of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy was only marginally superior to psychotherapy alone among the childhood abuse cohort. Our results suggest that psychotherapy may be an essential element in the treatment of patients with chronic forms of major depression and a history of childhood trauma.

The 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS), a new measure of depressive symptom severity derived from the 30-item Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (IDS), is available in both self-report (QIDS-SR(16)) and clinician-rated (QIDS-C(16)) formats. This report evaluates and compares the psychometric properties of the QIDS-SR(16) in relation to the IDS-SR(30) and the 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D(24)) in 596 adult outpatients treated for chronic nonpsychotic, major depressive disorder. Internal consistency was high for the QIDS-SR(16) (Cronbach's alpha =.86), the IDS-SR(30) (Cronbach's alpha =.92), and the HAM-D(24) (Cronbach's alpha =.88). QIDS-SR(16) total scores were highly correlated with IDS-SR(30) (.96) and HAM-D(24) (.86) total scores. Item-total correlations revealed that several similar items were highly correlated with both QIDS-SR(16) and IDS-SR(30) total scores. Roughly 1.3 times the QIDS-SR(16) total score is predictive of the HAM-D(17) (17-item version of the HAM-D) total score. The QIDS-SR(16) was as sensitive to symptom change as the IDS-SR(30) and HAM-D(24), indicating high concurrent validity for all three scales. The QIDS-SR(16) has highly acceptable psychometric properties, which supports the usefulness of this brief rating of depressive symptom severity in both clinical and research settings.

Objective: The aim of this 12-week, double-blind, flexible-dose, placebo-controlled, parallel-arm, multicenter trial was to determine the safety and efficacy of fluvoxamine in a controlled-release (CR) formulation in adult outpatients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD)., Method: 253 adult outpatients with DSM-IV OCD were randomly assigned to receive 100 to 300 mg of fluvoxamine CR (N = 127) or placebo (N = 126) once daily for 12 weeks. Intent-to-treat analyses of efficacy assessments with the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (YBOCS), Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale (CGI-S), and Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scale (CGI-I) were conducted., Results: Fluvoxamine CR was significantly (p <.05) superior to placebo in decreasing YBOCS total score beginning at week 2. This early response was sustained at all subsequent visits. At endpoint, there was a mean decrease of 8.5 +/- 0.7 (31.7%) in the YBOCS total score compared with baseline in the fluvoxamine CR treatment group versus a mean decrease of 5.6 +/- 0.7 (21.2%) in the placebo group (p =.001). Fluvoxamine CR was also significantly superior to placebo in lowering the severity of illness (CGI-S, p =.002) and in producing clinical improvement (CGI-I, p <.01). At endpoint, significantly greater percentages of the fluvoxamine CR treatment group were responders (p =.002) and remitters (p =.019) compared with the placebo group., Conclusion: Over 12 weeks, fluvoxamine CR treatment was associated with a statistically significant and clinically relevant reduction in OCD severity and was found to be safe and well tolerated. The early onset of therapeutic effect, starting from week 2, was of particular interest.

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is an anxiety disorder that commonly presents comorbidly with other psychiatric disorders. The underlying neurobiology of OCD is associated with circuits involving the basal ganglia, thalamus, and the frontal cortex. Randomized, placebo-controlled trials indicate acute and long-term efficacy of potent selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), such as paroxetine. There is suggestive evidence that higher doses of paroxetine than those used in major depression are needed for benefit in OCD. Because of their safety and beneficial adverse-event profile, the SSRIs have become the leading choice in the pharmacological management of OCD.