10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A Phase III, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Flexible-Dose Study of Levomilnacipran Extended-Release in Patients With Major Depressive Disorder

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

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

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood.

          Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) is now well established as a method for estimating the parameters of the general Gaussian linear model with a structured covariance matrix, in particular for mixed linear models. Conventionally, estimates of precision and inference for fixed effects are based on their asymptotic distribution, which is known to be inadequate for some small-sample problems. In this paper, we present a scaled Wald statistic, together with an F approximation to its sampling distribution, that is shown to perform well in a range of small sample settings. The statistic uses an adjusted estimator of the covariance matrix that has reduced small sample bias. This approach has the advantage that it reproduces both the statistics and F distributions in those settings where the latter is exact, namely for Hotelling T2 type statistics and for analysis of variance F-ratios. The performance of the modified statistics is assessed through simulation studies of four different REML analyses and the methods are illustrated using three examples.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The economic burden of depression in the United States: how did it change between 1990 and 2000?

            The economic burden of depression was estimated to be 43.7 billion dollars in 1990. A subsequent study reported a cost burden of 52.9 billion dollars using revised prevalence data and a refined workplace cost estimation approach. The objective of the current report is to provide a 10-year update of these estimates using the same methodological framework. Using a human capital approach, we developed prevalence-based estimates of 3 major cost categories: (1) direct costs, (2) mortality costs arising from depression-related suicides, and (3) costs associated with depression in the workplace. Cost-of-illness estimates from 1990 were updated to reflect the experience in 2000 using current epidemiologic data and publicly available population, wage, and cost information. Whereas the treatment rate of depression increased by over 50%, its economic burden rose by only 7%, going from 77.4 billion dollars in 1990 (inflation-adjusted dollars) to 83.1 billion dollars in 2000. Of the 2000 total, 26.1 billion dollars (31%) were direct medical costs, 5.4 billion dollars (7%) were suicide-related mortality costs, and 51.5 billion dollars (62%) were workplace costs. The economic burden of depression remained relatively stable between 1990 and 2000, despite a dramatic increase in the proportion of depression sufferers who received treatment. Future research will incorporate additional costs associated with depression sufferers, including the excess costs of their coexisting psychiatric and medical conditions and attention to the role of painful conditions as a driver of these costs.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Assessing treatment effects in clinical trials with the discan metric of the Sheehan Disability Scale.

              The Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) is a patient-rated, discretized analog measure of functional disability in work, social, and family life. Its increasing use in clinical trials in psychiatry suggests a need to assess its responsiveness and interpretability. In this paper we identify and review studies in which the SDS was used as a treatment outcome measure. Our objectives are (i) to evaluate the sensitivity of the SDS to treatment effects and (ii) to examine potential thresholds or cutoff scores for remission and response. Studies for the review were retrieved from the National Library of Medicine's PubMed database (1966 to 21 March 2007) and other sources. All studies had to use the SDS, be double-blind, controlled or large open-label trials in English. Studies assessing nonpharmacological treatments, long-term trials (>12 weeks), small n trials (less than 20 patients per treatment arm) and trials for conditions other than one of the anxiety disorders, depression, or premenstrual dysphoric disorder were excluded. Extracted data included the diagnostic target of treatment, n, study design, and method of analysis. Initial, endpoint and/or mean change scores were extracted from tables, text, or extrapolated from figures. In all, 37 studies meeting the inclusion criteria were retrieved and reviewed. All of the studies treated the SDS as a numeric scale and analyzed mean change or endpoint differences with parametric statistics. Three provided additional outcome data using nonparametric response or remission criteria. Overall, the SDS performed well in discriminating between active and inactive treatments. The results indicate that the SDS is sensitive to treatment effects. To establish reliable and valid cutoff scores for remission and response, there is a need to supplement parametric analyses using mean change and endpoint differences with nonparametric analyses showing the percentage meeting specified response and remission criteria. In addition, the percentages with endpoint scores of zero should be reported.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Clin Psychopharmacol
                J Clin Psychopharmacol
                JCP
                Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology
                Williams And Wilkins
                0271-0749
                1533-712X
                February 2014
                31 December 2013
                : 34
                : 1
                : 47-56
                Affiliations
                [1]From the *Atlanta Institute of Medicine & Research, Atlanta, GA; †Forest Research Institute, Jersey City, NJ, at time of study; and ‡University of South Florida College of Medicine, Tampa, FL.
                Author notes
                Reprints: Angelo Sambunaris, MD, 5901-A Peachtree-Dunwoody Rd, Suite A-200, Atlanta, GA 30328 (e-mail: a.sambunaris@ 123456atlanta-institute.com ).
                Article
                JCP21682 00011
                10.1097/JCP.0000000000000060
                4047313
                24172209
                b42b8f0a-e429-4d69-a6a8-49338fa75296
                Copyright © 2014 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivitives 3.0 License, where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially.

                History
                : 14 November 2012
                : 15 August 2013
                Categories
                Original Contributions
                Custom metadata
                TRUE

                major depressive disorder,snri,depression,selective serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor,antidepressants

                Comments

                Comment on this article