A phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled, flexible-dose study of levomilnacipran extended-release in patients with major depressive disorder

Angelo Sambunaris, Anjana Bose, Carl P Gommoll, Changzheng Chen, William M Greenberg, David V Sheehan, Angelo Sambunaris, Anjana Bose, Carl P Gommoll, Changzheng Chen, William M Greenberg, David V Sheehan

Abstract

Levomilnacipran (1S, 2R-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.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score change from baseline (least squares [LS] mean [SE]) to week 8 (Modified ITT population, MMRM).
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Sheehan Disability Scale change from baseline (least squares [LS] mean [SE]) to week 8 (Modified ITT population, MMRM).

References

    1. Mathers CD, Loncar D. Projections of global mortality and burden of disease from 2002 to 2030. PLoS Med. 2006; 3 (11): e442.
    1. Kasper S, Meshkat D, Kutzelnigg A. Improvement of the noradrenergic symptom cluster following treatment with milnacipran. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2011; 7 (suppl 1): 21– 27
    1. Israel JA. Remission in depression: definition and initial treatment approaches. J Psychopharmacol. 2006; 20 (3 suppl): 5– 10
    1. Hirschfeld RM, Dunner DL, Keitner G, et al. Does psychosocial functioning improve independent of depressive symptoms? A comparison of nefazodone, psychotherapy, and their combination. Biol Psychiatry. 2002; 51 (2): 123– 133
    1. McKnight PE, Kashdan TB. The importance of functional impairment to mental health outcomes: a case for reassessing our goals in depression treatment research. Clin Psychol Rev. 2009; 29 (3): 243– 259
    1. Auclair AL, Martel JC, Assie MB, et al. Levomilnacipran (F2695), a norepinephrine-preferring SNRI: profile in vitro and in models of depression and anxiety. Neuropharmacology. 2013; 70: 338– 347
    1. Keller M. Role of serotonin and noradrenaline in social dysfunction: a review of data on reboxetine and the Social Adaptation Self-evaluation Scale (SASS). Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2001; 23 (1): 15– 19
    1. Nutt DJ. Relationship of neurotransmitters to the symptoms of major depressive disorder. J Clin Psychiatry. 2008; 69 (suppl E1): 4– 7
    1. Li F, Chin C, Wangsa J, et al. Excretion and metabolism of milnacipran in humans after oral administration of milnacipran hydrochloride. Drug Metab Dispos. 2012; 40 (9): 1723– 1735
    1. FDA’s policy statement for the development of new stereoisomeric drugs. Chirality. 1992; 4 (5): 338– 340
    1. Hutt AJ. The development of single-isomer molecules: why and how. CNS Spectr. 2002; 7 (4 suppl 1): 14– 22
    1. Montgomery S, Mansuy L, Ruth A, et al. The efficacy and safety of levomilnacipran sustained release in moderate to severe major depressive disorder: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, proof-of-concept study. J Clin Psychiatry. 2013; 74 (4): 363– 369
    1. Asnis G, Bose A, Gommoll C, et al. The efficacy and safety of levomilnacipran SR 40 mg, 80 mg, or 120 mg in major depressive disorder: a phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Clin Psychiatry. 2013; 74 (3): 242– 248
    1. Bakish D, Bose A, Gommoll C, et al. Levomilnacipran ER 40 mg and 80 mg in major depressive disorder: a phase III, randomized, double-blind, fixed-dose, placebo-controlled study. J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2013. doi: 10.11503/jpn.130040. [Epub ahead of print]
    1. Gommoll C, Bose A, Li H, et al A randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled, flexible-dose study of levomilnacipran in patients with major depressive disorder. Poster presented at: the 24th Annual US Psychiatric and Mental Health Congress; November 7–10, 2011; Las Vegas, NV.
    1. Sheehan DV, Lecrubier Y, Sheehan KH, et al. The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.): the development and validation of a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview for DSM-IV and ICD-10. J Clin Psychiatry. 1998; 59 (suppl 20): 22– 33
    1. Montgomery SA, Asberg M. A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change. Br J Psychiatry. 1979; 134: 382– 389
    1. Posner K, Brown GK, Stanley B, et al. The Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale: initial validity and internal consistency findings from three multisite studies with adolescents and adults. Am J Psychiatry. 2011; 168 (12): 1266– 1277
    1. Sheehan DV, Harnett-Sheehan K, Raj BA. The measurement of disability. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 1996; 11 (suppl 3): 89– 95
    1. Hamilton M. A rating scale for depression. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1960; 23: 56– 62
    1. Guy W. ECDEU Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacology: Revised. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health Education & Welfare; 1976: 218– 222
    1. Fehnel SE, Bann CM, Hogue SL, et al. The development and psychometric evaluation of the Motivation and Energy Inventory (MEI). Qual Life Res. 2004; 13 (7): 1321– 1336
    1. Wesnes KA, Ward T, McGinty A, et al. The memory enhancing effects of a Ginkgo biloba/Panax ginseng combination in healthy middle-aged volunteers. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2000; 152 (4): 353– 361
    1. Bond A, Lader M. The use of analogue scales in rating subjective feelings Br J Med Psychol. 1974; 47: 211– 218
    1. Kenward MG, Roger JH. Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics. 1997; 53 (3): 983– 997
    1. Kenward MG, Molenberghs G, Thijs H. Pattern-mixture models with proper time dependence. Biometrika. 2003; 90 (1): 53– 71
    1. Sheehan KH, Sheehan DV. Assessing treatment effects in clinical trials with the discan metric of the Sheehan Disability Scale. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 2008; 23 (2): 70– 83
    1. Nemeroff CB. The burden of severe depression: a review of diagnostic challenges and treatment alternatives. J Psychiatr Res. 2007; 41 (3–4): 189– 206
    1. Greenberg PE, Kessler RC, Birnbaum HG, et al. The economic burden of depression in the United States: how did it change between 1990 and 2000? J Clin Psychiatry. 2003; 64 (12): 1465– 1475
    1. Montgomery SA, Moller HJ. Is the significant superiority of escitalopram compared with other antidepressants clinically relevant? Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 2009; 24 (3): 111– 118
    1. Kurian BT, Greer TL, Trivedi MH. Strategies to enhance the therapeutic efficacy of antidepressants: targeting residual symptoms. Expert Rev Neurother. 2009; 9 (7): 975– 984
    1. Cipriani A, Barbui C, Brambilla P, et al. Are all antidepressants really the same? The case of fluoxetine: a systematic review. J Clin Psychiatry. 2006; 67 (6): 850– 864
    1. Sheehan DV, Harnett-Sheehan K, Spann ME, et al. Assessing remission in major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder clinical trials with the discan metric of the Sheehan disability scale. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 2011; 26 (2): 75– 83
    1. Giller E, Jr, Bialos D, Riddle MA, et al. MAOI treatment response: multiaxial assessment. J Affect Disord. 1988; 14 (2): 171– 175
    1. Mintz J, Mintz LI, Arruda MJ, et al. Treatments of depression and the functional capacity to work. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1992; 49 (10): 761– 768
    1. Paykel ES, Weissman MM. Social adjustment and depression. A longitudinal study. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1973; 28 (5): 659– 663
    1. Weissman MM, Klerman GL, Paykel ES, et al. Treatment effects on the social adjustment of depressed patients. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1974; 30 (6): 771– 778
    1. Keller MB. Past, present, and future directions for defining optimal treatment outcome in depression: remission and beyond. JAMA. 2003; 289 (23): 3152– 3160
    1. Stahl SM, Grady MM, Moret C, et al. SNRIs: their pharmacology, clinical efficacy, and tolerability in comparison with other classes of antidepressants. CNS Spectr. 2005; 10 (9): 732– 747

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren