Safety and Persistence of Nalmefene Treatment for Alcohol Dependence. Results from Two Post-authorisation Safety Studies.

AIMS: Two post-authorisation studies assessed the safety and persistence of patients' use of nalmefene. METHODS: The START study (EUPAS5678) was a non-interventional, multi-country, prospective, 18-month (8 follow-up visits) cohort study including outpatients initiating nalmefene for the first time. The multi-database retrospective cohort study (MDRC, EUPAS14083) included baseline and follow-up data from German, Swedish and UK healthcare databases. Both studies permitted 'all comers' without explicit exclusion criteria; predefined subgroups of interest included the elderly (≥65 years) as well as patients with significant psychiatric and/or somatic comorbidities. RESULTS: START study: Overall, the mean duration of nalmefene treatment was 10.3 ± 7.3 months (N = 1348), with 49.0% of patients treated for ≥1 year; frequent reasons for treatment discontinuation were 'goal reached' and 'drug cost'. The most frequently reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were nausea (4.7%), dizziness (3.2%) and insomnia (2.0%). ADR rates appeared higher in the elderly subpopulation (18.6% reported ≥1 ADR vs. 12.0% in the total population) but were not higher in the other predefined subgroups.MDRC study: The database follow-up analysis followed 2892 patients over 18 months for whom the duration of nalmefene treatment was between 2 and 3 months and <5% of patients used nalmefene for ≥1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the inclusion of a wider patient population (e.g. elderly patients and those with relevant co-morbidities), the safety and tolerability profile of nalmefene given in routine practice was consistent with previous clinical studies. The differing rates of persistence beyond 1 year likely reflect the different methodologies and highlight the relevance of psychosocial support at follow-up visits.

Suicidal ideation and behavior in adults with major depressive disorder treated with vortioxetine: post hoc pooled analyses of randomized, placebo-controlled, short-term and open-label, long-term extension trials.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the risk of suicidal ideation and behavior associated with vortioxetine treatment in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: Suicide-related events were evaluated post hoc using 2 study pools: one short-term pool of 10 randomized, placebo-controlled studies (6-8 weeks) and another long-term pool that included 3 open-label extension studies (52 weeks). Evaluation of suicide-related events was performed using Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) scores and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) data. RESULTS: At baseline, the percentage of patients reporting any C-SSRS ideation or behavior events in short-term studies was similar between placebo (14.7%), vortioxetine (19.8%, 13.0%, 11.2%, and 13.7% for 5-, 10-, 15-, and 20-mg groups, respectively), and duloxetine active reference (13.2%) and did not change throughout the 6- to 8-week treatment period for placebo (17.0%), vortioxetine (19.3%, 13.5%, 12.6%, and 15% for 5-, 10-, 15-, and 20-mg groups, respectively), or duloxetine (11.3%). The incidence of suicide-related events for TEAEs in the short-term pool was 0.4% for placebo, 0.2% or 1.0% for vortioxetine 5 mg or 10 mg, and 0.7% each for vortioxetine 15 mg and 20 mg, as well as duloxetine. After 52-week treatment with vortioxetine, suicidal ideation based on C-SSRS was 9.8%, C-SSRS suicidal behavior was 0.2%, and the incidence of suicide-related events based on TEAEs was <1%. There were no completed suicides in any study. CONCLUSIONS: Vortioxetine is not associated with increased risk of suicidal ideation or behavior in MDD patients.

Safety and effectiveness of vortioxetine for major depressive disorder: Real-world evidence from a population-based study in South Korea.

Background: A post-marketing surveillance study was conducted to assess the real-world safety and effectiveness of vortioxetine for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in South Korea. Methods: Adult patients aged 19-94 years receiving vortioxetine for MDD at 72 hospitals and clinics in South Korea between 19th August 2014 and 18th August 2020 were included. Patients were followed for up to 24±2 weeks, at up to three visits. Adverse events (AEs) and effectiveness, assessed by both clinician and patient-reported measures, were analyzed. Results: A total of 3,263 patients (mean age: 51.28 years) were included in the safety set; 1,095 were aged ≥65 years. The majority of the safety set (61.97%) were female. The overall rate of any AEs and serious AEs were 17.13 and 1.56%, respectively. The majority of AEs were mild (88.32%). The rates of AEs did not differ statistically by age (≥65 years: 16.89% [185/1,095] versus <65 years: 17.25% [374/2,168)], p=0.7989), sex (male: 15.95% [198/1,241] versus female: 17.85% [361/2,022], p=0.1623), or liver impairment (with liver impairment: 20.90% [14/67] versus without liver impairment: 17.05% [545/3,196], p=0.4087). Effectiveness was assessed in 1,918 patients. By 24±2 weeks, there were significant clinical improvements from baseline, assessed by change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score (mean±standard deviation [SD]: -10.49±9.42 points, p <0.0001), the proportion of patients with improved symptoms using the Clinical Global Impression - Improvement scores (79.29%), and in both patient-reported measures, with a significant improvement in the Korean Version of the Perceived Deficits Questionnaire-Depression (mean±SD: -6.06±13.23, p <0.0001) and Digit Symbol Substitution Test (mean±SD: 4.83±9.81, p <0.0001) total scores from baseline. Similar to the safety profiles, the proportions of patients with improved symptoms compared with baseline using the Clinical Global Impression - Improvement scores did not differ by age (≥65 years: 82.09% versus <65 years: 78.32%, p=0.0511), sex (male: 77.45% versus female: 81.01%, p=0.0587), or liver impairment (with liver impairment: 67.57% versus without liver impairment: 79.85%, p=0.0663). Conclusion: Vortioxetine appears to be well-tolerated and effective for treating MDD patients in the real-world setting in South Korea, irrespective of age, sex, and liver impairment, reflecting the known profile of vortioxetine based on studies worldwide.

Patient Response Trajectories in Major Depressive Disorder.

Objective: To investigate whether the efficacy of antidepressants can be understood in terms of patient response-trajectory classes. Experimental Design: Patient-level data were analysed from 1357 adults with MDD randomised to either escitalopram 20 mg/day (n = 676) or placebo (n = 681) in five 8-week randomised placebo-controlled trials. Growth mixture models (GMMs) were used to identify the response trajectories; longitudinal latent class analysis (LLCA) was used to corroborate the findings. Principal Observations: Three classes of response were identified for escitalopram and placebo based on the trajectory of the patients' Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total scores during treatment. All three classes had similar mean baseline MADRS scores, but the change from baseline after 8 weeks differed: -4.2 MADRS points for non-responders, -18.4 MADRS points for slow responders, and -26.7 points for fast responders. The proportions of non-responders, slow responders and fast responders were 53%, 38% and 9%, respectively, with placebo and 27%, 58% and 14%, respectively, with escitalopram. Receiver operating curve analysis showed that a cut-off of ≥43% improvement from baseline to week 2 predicted fast responders, and a cut-off of ≥28% improvement from baseline to week 4 predicted responders (fast or slow). There were no clinically useful differences at baseline that predicted the trajectory class to which a patient would belong. Conclusions: The presence of fast-, slow- and non-responder classes has a clear clinical relevance for guiding treatment decisions; individual patients can be classified by the change in their MADRS score from baseline at 2 or 4 weeks.

Impact of escitalopram treatment on Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire scores in major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder.

Administration of the same Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (Q-LES-Q) in major depressive disorder (MDD) and in generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) before and after treatment allowed us to compare quality of life enjoyment and satisfaction in these two disorders and to compare outcome based on symptoms versus functioning. Q-LES-Q and symptom-specific Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA) data from eight randomized, 8-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials with escitalopram were used. MDD (n=1,140) or GAD (n=1,045) patients report a substantial degree of quality of life enjoyment and satisfaction impairment (baseline scores 64% and 76% of community norm, respectively). Treatment resulted in statistically and clinically significant improvement in quality of life enjoyment and satisfaction. The improvement was greater in patients treated with escitalopram than with placebo. In MDD, the majority of remitters (MADRS

Escitalopram therapy for major depression and anxiety disorders.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled clinical trials have demonstrated that escitalopram is efficacious in a range of mood and anxiety disorders, but the individual trials are insufficiently large to allow a full exploration of its tolerability. OBJECTIVE: To assess the tolerability and safety of escitalopram through analysis of all randomized controlled clinical trials in major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders. METHODS: Analyses of tolerability were based on data from all available randomized, double-blind, controlled studies completed by December 2006 in which escitalopram was compared with placebo or active compounds (citalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, venlafaxine). Adverse events (AEs) that occurred more frequently with escitalopram than with placebo were listed, and tolerability and safety were evaluated. RESULTS: Nausea was the only AE with an incidence greater than or equal to 10% and 5 percentage points greater than with placebo during short-term treatment. In general, AEs were mild to moderate in severity. AEs related to sexual dysfunction were similarly frequent with escitalopram and citalopram, but were higher with paroxetine. No suicide occurred among escitalopram-treated patients, and there were no significant differences between escitalopram and placebo in incidence of suicidal behavior, measured by self-harm and suicidal thoughts. The 8 week withdrawal rate due to AEs was higher with escitalopram than with placebo (7.3% vs 2.8%; p < 0.001) but lower than with paroxetine (6.6% vs 9.0%; p < 0.01) or venlafaxine (6.1% vs 13.2%; p < 0.01) (Fisher's Exact test, 2 tailed). Compared with paroxetine, escitalopram resulted in significantly fewer discontinuation symptoms (average increase in Discontinuation Emergent Signs and Symptoms Scale of 1.6 vs 3.9; p < 0.01). There were no clinically relevant changes in clinical laboratory values in patients treated with escitalopram. Mean weight change after 6 months of treatment with escitalopram (0.58 +/- 2.63 kg) was similar to that with placebo (0.15 +/- 2.33 kg). The incidence of cardiovascular events was similar to that with placebo. The risk of AEs was no higher in special patient populations, such as the elderly (> or =65 y of age) or those with hepatic dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: Based on data from randomized controlled trials involving more than 4000 escitalopram-treated patients, escitalopram (10-20 mg/day) is safe and well tolerated in short- and long-term treatment.

A randomized, double-blind, 24-week study of escitalopram (10 mg/day) versus citalopram (20 mg/day) in primary care patients with major depressive disorder.

OBJECTIVE: A randomized, double-blind, 24-week-fixed-dose study comparing the efficacy and safety of escitalopram to that of citalopram was safety was conducted in primary care patients with moderate to severe major depressive disorder (MDD). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, 24-week fixeddose study. Patients were randomly assigned to treatment with escitalopram 10 mg/day (n = 175) or citalopram 20 mg/day (n = 182). Clinical response was evaluated using the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) scale. The prospectively defined primary parameter of antidepressant efficacy was the change from baseline in the mean MADRS total score during the 24 weeks of double-blind treatment, using a repeated measures analysis of variance to compare the treatment groups over all assessment points simultaneously. RESULTS: Based on the primary parameter, escitalopram was at least as efficacious as citalopram. Based on the prospectively defined secondary parameter, mean change from baseline in the CGI-S score, escitalopram was statistically significantly superior to citalopram at Week 24. The importance of long-term treatment could be demonstrated, in that more than half (55% and 51%) of the patients who had not responded by Week 8 achieved remission by Week 24. Both escitalopram and citalopram were safe and well tolerated in acute and long-term treatment, and the overall adverse event profiles for the two drugs were similar. For the intent-to-treat population, there were statistically significantly fewer withdrawals in the escitalopram group than in the citalopram group, particularly after Week 8. CONCLUSION: Patients with MDD responded well to long-term treatment with either escitalopram or citalopram. This study demonstrated the importance of extending treatment of depression beyond 8 weeks.

Escitalopram versus citalopram: the surprising role of the R-enantiomer.

RATIONALE: Citalopram is a racemate consisting of a 1:1 mixture of the R(-)- and S(+)-enantiomers. Non-clinical studies show that the serotonin reuptake inhibitory activity of citalopram is attributable to the S-enantiomer, escitalopram. A series of recent non-clinical and clinical studies comparing escitalopram and citalopram to placebo found that equivalent doses of these two drugs, i.e. containing the same amount of the S-enantiomer, showed better effect for escitalopram. These results suggested that the R-citalopram in citalopram inhibits the effect of the S-enantiomer. OBJECTIVE: To review the pharmacological and non-clinical literature that describes the inhibition of escitalopram by R-citalopram, as well as the implications of this inhibition for the clinical efficacy of escitalopram compared to citalopram. METHODS: The information in this review was gathered from published articles and abstracts. RESULTS: In appropriate neurochemical, functional, and behavioural non-clinical experiments, escitalopram shows greater efficacy and faster onset of action than comparable doses of citalopram. The lower efficacy of citalopram in these studies is apparently due to the inhibition of the effect of the S-enantiomer by the R-enantiomer, possibly via an allosteric interaction with the serotonin transporter. Data from randomised clinical trials consistently show better efficacy with escitalopram than with citalopram, including higher rates of response and remission, and faster time to symptom relief. CONCLUSION: The R-enantiomer present in citalopram counteracts the activity of the S-enantiomer, thereby providing a possible basis for the pharmacological and clinical differences observed between citalopram and escitalopram.

Escitalopram (10-20 mg/day) is effective and well tolerated in a placebo-controlled study in depression in primary care.

Escitalopram was compared to placebo in moderately to severely depressed patients in primary care with citalopram as the active reference. Patients were randomized to receive flexible doses of 10-20 mg/day escitalopram (n=155), 20-40 mg/day citalopram (n=160), or placebo (n=154) over an 8-week double-blind period. The primary efficacy parameter was the change from baseline to last assessment in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score. Escitalopram produced a statistically significant therapeutic difference of 2.9 points (P=0.002) compared to placebo, and escitalopram was consistently and statistically significantly more efficacious than placebo from week 1 onwards. Analysis of Clinical Global Impression-Severity and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement confirmed the primary efficacy results. By week 8, significantly more patients had responded to treatment with escitalopram than with citalopram (P=0.021) or placebo (P=0.009). Escitalopram was as well tolerated as citalopram and had a similar adverse event profile. Both escitalopram- and citalopram-treated patients had placebo-level adverse event withdrawal rates (3% and 4%, respectively). This study demonstrates the consistent antidepressant efficacy and excellent tolerability of escitalopram 10-20 mg/day in primary care patients with major depressive disorder.

Satisfaction with medication is correlated with outcome but not persistence in patients treated with placebo, escitalopram, or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors: a post hoc analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To test whether satisfaction with taking medication, assessed using item 15 of the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (Q-LES-Q), is associated with clinical outcome and persistence with treatment. METHOD: In this post hoc analysis, data were analyzed from 4 randomized placebo-controlled studies of patients with major depressive disorder treated with escitalopram (650 patients taking escitalopram and 534 taking placebo), together with data from 2 randomized trials of escitalopram versus venlafaxine or duloxetine (235 patients taking escitalopram and 233 taking a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor). The studies were published between 2002 and 2007. Instruments included the Q-LES-Q, which was assessed at baseline and week 8, and the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), which was assessed at baseline and weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8. RESULTS: At baseline, the mean ± SD MADRS total score was 30.0 ± 4.6, and the mean Q-LES-Q item 15 score was 2.9 ± 0.9. At week 8, the MADRS response rates of placebo-treated patients with a low, moderate, or high satisfaction with medication at baseline were 30%, 37%, and 46%, respectively (mixed model repeated measures [MMRM]). The corresponding MADRS response rates for escitalopram-treated patients with a low, moderate, or high satisfaction at baseline were 56%, 60%, and 67%, respectively (MMRM). Baseline satisfaction with medication was not significantly correlated with time to withdrawal (all reasons). The change in satisfaction with medication from baseline to endpoint was significantly correlated with symptomatic improvement on the MADRS (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Baseline satisfaction with medication after 1 week of placebo run-in is a moderator of treatment outcome but not of persistence of treatment in the acute treatment phase of depressed outpatients. Patient attitude toward medication should be taken into account before treatment is initiated.