Efficacy and safety of venlafaxine versus nortriptyline for the preventive treatment of migraine: A double-blind randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: Migraine, as a primary headache disorder, stands as one of the primary causes of disability worldwide. Consequently, prophylactic treatments are highly recommended for individuals experiencing recurrent migraine episodes. Our study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety profiles of venlafaxine and nortriptyline in the prophylactic management of migraine. METHODS: In this single-center, randomized, double-blind clinical trial, 210 migraine patients were allocated into two groups in a 1:1 ratio. One group received venlafaxine (37.5 mg, orally twice daily), while the other group administered nortriptyline (25 mg, orally once daily). A neurologist documented (1) headache intensity using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and 6-point Behavioral Rating Scale (BRS-6), (2) headache frequency (per month), and (3) headache duration (in hours) of participants on days 0, 45, and 90 of the intervention. RESULTS: Following the 90-day intervention, a significant decrease was observed in VAS, BRS-6, frequency, and duration of headaches within both groups (all with p-values <0.001). No difference in VAS, BRS-6, or headache durations was observed between the two groups after 45 and 90 days of treatment (all p-values > 0.05). Although the headache frequency exhibited no difference between the groups after 45 days (p-value = 0.097), a significantly lower frequency in the venlafaxine group was observed at day 90 of the intervention (p-value = 0.011). The reductions in attack parameters in the 0-45- and 0-90-day intervals did not meet statistical significance between the two groups (p-values > 0.05). 77.0 % of the participants in the venlafaxine group and 79.2 % in the nortriptyline group experienced a minimum of 50 % improvement in all attack parameters. Venlafaxine demonstrated a statistically significant lower incidence of adverse reactions in comparison to nortriptyline (p-value = 0.005). A total of 33 adverse drug reactions were documented in the venlafaxine group and 53 in the nortriptyline group, with insomnia observed in the former and xerostomia in the latter as the most prevalent side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Venlafaxine and nortriptyline demonstrate clinically significant and comparable therapeutic efficacy for migraine patients in reducing the intensity, frequency, and duration of headache attacks. Venlafaxine may be preferred to nortriptyline in the context of migraine preventive treatment under comparable conditions due to its lower incidence of adverse effects.

Relationship between Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total scores in older adults with major depressive disorder: An analysis of the OPTIMUM clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) are commonly used scales to measure depression severity in older adults. METHODS: We utilized data from the Optimizing Outcomes of Treatment-Resistant Depression in Older Adults (OPTIMUM) clinical trial to produce conversion tables relating PHQ-9 and MADRS total scores. We split the sample into training (N = 555) and validation samples (N = 187). Equipercentile linking was performed on the training sample to produce conversion tables for PHQ-9 and MADRS. We compared the original and estimated scores in the validation sample with Bland-Altman analysis. We compared the depression severity level using the original and estimated scores with Chi-square tests. RESULTS: The Bland-Altman analysis confirmed that differences between the original and estimated scores for at least 95 % of the sample fit within 1.96 standard deviations of the mean difference. Chi-square tests showed a significant difference in the proportion of participants at each depression severity category determined using the original and estimated scores. LIMITATIONS: The conversion tables should be used with caution when comparing depression severity at the individual level. CONCLUSIONS: Our conversion tables relating PHQ-9 and MADRS scores can be used to compare treatment outcomes using aggregate data in studies that only used one of these scales.

Developing a machine learning model for predicting venlafaxine active moiety concentration: a retrospective study using real-world evidence.

BACKGROUND: Venlafaxine is frequently prescribed for patients with depression. To control the concentration of venlafaxine within the therapeutic window for the best treatment effect, a model to predict venlafaxine concentration is necessary. AIM: Our objective was to develop a prediction model for venlafaxine concentration using real-world evidence based on machine learning and deep learning techniques. METHOD: Patients who underwent venlafaxine treatment between November 2019 and August 2022 were included in the study. Important variables affecting venlafaxine concentration were identified using a combination of univariate analysis, sequential forward selection, and machine learning techniques. Predictive performance of nine machine learning and deep learning algorithms were assessed, and the one with the optimal performance was selected for modeling. The final model was interpreted using SHapley Additive exPlanations. RESULTS: A total of 330 eligible patients were included. Five influential variables that affect venlafaxine concentration were venlafaxine daily dose, sex, age, hyperlipidemia, and adenosine deaminase. The venlafaxine concentration prediction model was developed using the eXtreme Gradient Boosting algorithm (R2 = 0.65, mean absolute error = 77.92, root mean square error = 93.58). In the testing cohort, the accuracy of the predicted concentration within ± 30% of the actual concentration was 73.49%. In the subgroup analysis, the prediction accuracy was 69.39% within the recommended therapeutic range of venlafaxine concentration within ± 30% of the actual value. CONCLUSION: The XGBoost model for predicting blood concentration of venlafaxine using real-world evidence was developed, guiding the adjustment of regimen in clinical practice.

Evaluation of New Approaches to Depression Treatment Using an Animal Model of Pharmacoresistant Depression.

Depression is emerging as the predominant psychiatric disorder globally. Despite the wide availability of antidepressants, up to 30% of patients exhibit poor response to treatment, falling into the category of treatment-resistant depression (TRD). This underscores the need for the exploration of novel therapeutic options. Our work aims to study the effect of chronic administration of the pyridoindole derivative SMe1EC2M3, a triple reuptake inhibitor, and the combination of zoletil and venlafaxine under conditions of stress induced by a 4-week chronic mild stress (CMS) procedure in Wistar-Kyoto male rats as an animal model of TRD. Therefore, we investigated the possible effect of the selected compounds in four experimental groups, i.e., stress + vehicle, stress + venlafaxine, stress + zoletil + venlafaxine and stress + SMe1EC2M3. The following variables were assessed: anhedonia in sucrose preference test (SPT), spontaneous locomotion and exploration in open field test (OF), anxiety-like behavior in elevated plus maze test (EPM), motivation and depressive-like behavior in forced swim test (FST) and nociception in tail flick test. We also evaluated cognition, particularly recognition memory, in the novel object recognition test (NOR). Sucrose preference was significantly increased in the SMe1EC2M3 group (p < 0.05) in comparison with the venlafaxine animals. In the OF, we observed a significantly higher number of entries into both the central and peripheral zones in the venlafaxine (p < 0.05 central zone; p ≤ 0.05 periphery zone) and SMe1EC2M3 (p < 0.05 central zone; p < 0.05 periphery zone) groups compared to the venlafaxine + zoletil group. SMe1EC2M3 was able to significantly increase the time of climbing in FST (p < 0.05) in comparison with the venlafaxine and control groups. The NOR test revealed a significantly higher discrimination ratio in the SMe1EC2M3 group (p < 0.05) compared to the control and venlafaxine groups. Analyses of the tail flick test showed a significant increase in reaction time to painful stimuli in the SMe1EC2M3 group (p < 0.05) in comparison to both the control and venlafaxine groups. Our findings suggest that SMe1EC2M3 has the potential to ameliorate some behavioral changes associated with TRD, and the venlafaxine + zoletil combination treatment was not a promising treatment alternative in the animal model of TRD.

Effect of venlafaxine on anhedonia and amotivation in patients with major depressive disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) have been postulated to afford benefits in alleviating anhedonia and amotivation. This post hoc pooled analysis evaluated the effect of venlafaxine XR, an SNRI, on these symptoms in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: Data was pooled from five short-term randomized, placebo-controlled studies of venlafaxine XR for the treatment of MDD, comprising 1087 (venlafaxine XR, n = 585; placebo, n = 502) adult subjects. The change from baseline score in the MADRS anhedonia factor (based on items 1 [apparent sadness], 2 [reported sadness], 6 [concentration difficulties], 7 [lassitude], and 8 [inability to feel]) for anhedonia, and in motivational deficits (based on 3 items of HAM-D17: involvement in work and activities, psychomotor retardation, and energy level [ie, general somatic symptoms]) for amotivation, were measured through 8 weeks. Mixed model repeated measures (MMRMs) were used to analyze changes over time and ANCOVA to analyze the change from baseline at week 8 with LOCF employed to handle missing data. RESULTS: At the end of 8 weeks, the change from baseline was significantly greater in patients on venlafaxine XR in both anhedonia (mean, 95% CI: -2.73 [-3.63, -1.82], p < 0.0001) and amotivation scores (mean, 95% CI: -0.78 [-1.04, -0.52], p < 0.0001) than those on placebo. For both measures, the between-group separation from baseline was statistically significant starting from week 2 onwards, and it increased over time. CONCLUSION: This analysis demonstrates that venlafaxine XR is effective in improving symptoms of anhedonia and motivational deficits in patients with MDD.

Unexplained recurrent high fever observed in a depressed adolescent.

BACKGROUND: Depressive episodes in adolescents are often accompanied by various physical symptoms, but few studies have explored the association between depression and fever, This case study is the first to report the relationship between unexplained recurrent high fever and depression. CASE PRESENTATION: H is a 15 year old adolescent female currently in junior year. 2 + months ago, H gradually felt depressed after a class change. Around the time, the patient suddenly developed chills with no obvious trigger and fever. H was treated with anti-infective and anti-viral treatments all of which did not show significant improvement. No significant abnormality was seen in any of the related examinations. Considering that the patient's anxiety, depression and somatic symptoms were obvious during the course of the disease, she was given venlafaxine hydrochloride extended-release capsule 75 mg/d; tandospirone citrate capsule 10 mg Bid; alprazolam tablets 0.4 mg qn to improve mood and sleep; supplemented with transcranial repetitive magnetic stimulation therapy 2 times/d; visible light therapy 1 time/d and psychological counseling once. Over the 6 days of treatment, the patient's body temperature gradually returned to the normal range and her mood improved significantly. CONCLUSION: Depression should be considered a potential cause of unexplained recurrent fevers in adolescents, even when the temperature is significantly outside the normal range.

Efficacy and safety of venlafaxine hydrochloride combined with tandospirone citrate for patients with vascular depression accompanied by somatic symptoms: An open-labeled randomized control trial.

AIMS: To explore the pharmacological treatment of vascular depression (VaDep) and whether the blood levels of neurotransmitters can reflect the VaDep severity. METHODS: VaDep patients with somatic symptoms were enrolled and randomly received venlafaxine + tandospirone (Combined Group) or venlafaxine (Monotherapy Group). The treatment efficacy was assessed by Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD), Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA), and Patient Health Questionnaire-15 (PHQ-15). The levels of blood monoamine neurotransmitters were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. RESULTS: Both groups reported a progressive decrease in HAMD, HAMA, and PHQ-15 scores to below the baseline after the respective treatment. Compared with the Monotherapy Group, the Combined Group reported a significant decrease in HAMD score at week 2 and markedly lower HAMA and PHQ-15 scores at weeks 1, 2, 4, and 8. Both groups showed a decrease in the levels of blood monoamine neurotransmitters at weeks 4 and 8 when compared with the baseline. A strong positive association was evident between the plasma 5-HT levels and the HAMD score. CONCLUSION: The combined therapy rapidly acts on VaDep comorbid with anxiety and somatic symptoms and significantly alleviates the anxiety and somatic symptoms. The plasma levels of 5-HT may serve as potential objective candidates in evaluating VaDep severity and the efficacy of the undertaken treatment regimen.

Comparative effectiveness research trial for antidepressant incomplete and non-responders with treatment resistant depression (ASCERTAIN-TRD) a randomized clinical trial.

Further research is needed to help improve both the standard of care and the outcome for patients with treatment-resistant depression. A particularly critical evidence gap exists with respect to whether pharmacological or non-pharmacological augmentation is superior to antidepressant switch, or vice-versa. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of augmentation with aripiprazole or repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation versus switching to the antidepressant venlafaxine XR (or duloxetine for those not eligible to receive venlafaxine) for treatment-resistant depression. In this multi-site, 8-week, randomized, open-label study, 278 subjects (196 females and 82 males, mean age 45.6 years (SD 15.3)) with treatment-resistant depression were assigned in a 1:1:1 fashion to treatment with either of these three interventions; 235 subjects completed the study. 260 randomized subjects with at least one post-baseline Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating (MADRS) assessment were included in the analysis. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (score change (standard error (se)) = -17.39 (1.3) (p = 0.015) but not aripiprazole augmentation (score change (se) = -14.9 (1.1) (p = 0.069) was superior to switch (score change (se) = -13.22 (1.1)) on the MADRS. Aripiprazole (mean change (se) = -37.79 (2.9) (p = 0.003) but not repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation augmentation (mean change (se) = -42.96 (3.6) (p = 0.031) was superior to switch (mean change (se) = -34.45 (3.0)) on the symptoms of depression questionnaire. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation augmentation was shown to be more effective than switching antidepressants in treatment-resistant depression on the study primary measure. In light of these findings, clinicians should consider repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation augmentation early-on for treatment-resistant depression.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02977299.

A genetic risk score to predict treatment nonresponse in psychotic depression.

Psychotic depression is a severe and difficult-to-treat subtype of major depressive disorder for which higher rates of treatment-resistant depression were found. Studies have been performed aiming to predict treatment-resistant depression or treatment nonresponse. However, most of these studies excluded patients with psychotic depression. We created a genetic risk score (GRS) based on a large treatment-resistant depression genome-wide association study. We tested whether this GRS was associated with nonresponse, nonremission and the number of prior adequate antidepressant trials in patients with a psychotic depression. Using data from a randomized clinical trial with patients with a psychotic depression (n = 122), we created GRS deciles and calculated positive prediction values (PPV), negative predictive values (NPV) and odds ratios (OR). Nonresponse and nonremission were assessed after 7 weeks of treatment with venlafaxine, imipramine or venlafaxine plus quetiapine. The GRS was negatively correlated with treatment response (r = -0.32, p = 0.0023, n = 88) and remission (r = -0.31, p = 0.0037, n = 88), but was not correlated with the number of prior adequate antidepressant trials. For patients with a GRS in the top 10%, we observed a PPV of 100%, a NPV of 73.7% and an OR of 52.4 (p = 0.00072, n = 88) for nonresponse. For nonremission, a PPV of 100%, a NPV of 51.9% and an OR of 21.3 (p = 0.036, n = 88) was observed for patients with a GRS in the top 10%. Overall, an increased risk for nonresponse and nonremission was seen in patients with GRSs in the top 40%. Our results suggest that a treatment-resistant depression GRS is predictive of treatment nonresponse and nonremission in psychotic depression.

Sertraline versus venlafaxine combined with psychotherapy in trauma-affected refugees - a follow-up study on a pragmatic randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Research on long-term pharmacotherapy for trauma-affected refugees is scarce. The purpose of this follow-up study of a randomised trial was to investigate the effects of sertraline compared to venlafaxine in combination with psychotherapy, 6 and 18 months after end of trial. METHOD: The primary outcome was PTSD symptoms, measured by the Harvard Trauma Questionnaire (HTQ). The secondary outcomes included: Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 (HSCL-25), somatisation items of the Symptoms Checklist-90 (SCL), pain on a visual analogue scale, well-being on the WHO-5, Sheehan Disability Scale, Hamilton Depression and Anxiety scales and Global Assessment of Functioning. Moreover, the shorter version of the Recent Life Events (IRLE) was adopted to obtain information regarding the patients' treatment and life events between the follow-up periods. RESULTS: Out of 195 patients eligible for intention-to-treat analyses during trial, 116 participated in the 6-month follow-up and 97 participated in the 18-month follow-up. The results of our intention-to-treat analyses revealed no significant long-term differences between the groups on the primary outcome assessing PTSD symptoms (HTQ). For the secondary outcomes significant differences were found at the 18-month follow-up in favour of venlafaxine assessing symptoms of anxiety, depression and somatisation (HSCL-25 and SCL), although only in intention-to-treat and not per-protocol analyses. CONCLUSIONS: No conclusions could be drawn due to conflicting results between our intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses.

[Retrospective analysis of venlafaxine-induced hypoglycemia in patients with overdose]. / Análisis retrospectivo de las hipoglucemias inducidas por venlafaxina en pacientes con sobredosis.

INTRODUCTION: Recent publications relate the presence of hypoglycemia in venlafaxine (VLX) poisoning depending on the dose. Our aim was to analyze the clinical characteristics of patients who presented hypoglycemia induced by VLF overdose. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective study carried out in the Balearic Islands (2020-2023). INCLUSION CRITERIA: serum concentrations of VLX + O-desmethyl-venlafaxine (O-VLX)>800 ng/mL. The characteristics of patients with and without hypoglycemia were compared. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were included, 8 (38.1%) with hypoglycemia. No differences were found in the doses referred to in both groups. Peak concentrations of VLX + O-VLX (ng/mL) were 9,783 [4,459-17,976] in patients with hypoglycemia and 1,413 [930-1,719] in patients without hypoglycemia (p<0.0001). The presence of hypoglycemia was associated with: lower age and level of consciousness; and higher frequency of suicide attempts, seizures, mydriasis, tachycardia and serotonin syndrome, invasive respiratory support, fluid therapy and ICU admission (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The detection of hypoglycemia in a VLX overdose case is a readily available marker to suspect the severity of the patient. In any case, serum concentrations when available allow us to confirm intoxication.

CYP2D6 Phenotype Influences Pharmacokinetic Parameters of Venlafaxine: Results from a Population Pharmacokinetic Model in Older Adults with Depression.

In this study, we aimed to improve upon a published population pharmacokinetic (PK) model for venlafaxine (VEN) in the treatment of depression in older adults, then investigate whether CYP2D6 metabolizer status affected model-estimated PK parameters of VEN and its active metabolite O-desmethylvenlafaxine. The model included 325 participants from a clinical trial in which older adults with depression were treated with open-label VEN (maximum 300 mg/day) for 12 weeks and plasma levels of VEN and O-desmethylvenlafaxine were assessed at weeks 4 and 12. We fitted a nonlinear mixed-effect PK model using NONMEM to estimate PK parameters for VEN and O-desmethylvenlafaxine adjusted for CYP2D6 metabolizer status and age. At both lower doses (up to 150 mg/day) and higher doses (up to 300 mg/day), CYP2D6 metabolizers impacted PK model-estimated VEN clearance, VEN exposure, and active moiety (VEN + O-desmethylvenlafaxine) exposure. Specifically, compared with CYP2D6 normal metabolizers, (i) CYP2D6 ultra-rapid metabolizers had higher VEN clearance; (ii) CYP2D6 intermediate metabolizers had lower VEN clearance; (iii) CYP2D6 poor metabolizers had lower VEN clearance, higher VEN exposure, and higher active moiety exposure. Overall, our study showed that including a pharmacogenetic factor in a population PK model could increase model fit, and this improved model demonstrated how CYP2D6 metabolizer status affected VEN-related PK parameters, highlighting the importance of genetic factors in personalized medicine.

Venlafaxine's therapeutic reference range in the treatment of depression revised: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The selective serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor venlafaxine is among the most prescribed antidepressant drugs worldwide and, according to guidelines, its dose titration should be guided by drug-level monitoring of its active moiety (AM) which consists of venlafaxine (VEN) plus active metabolite O-desmethylvenlafaxine (ODV). This indication of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), however, assumes a clear concentration/effect relationship for a drug, which for VEN has not been systematically explored yet. OBJECTIVES: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the relationship between blood levels, efficacy, and adverse reactions in order to suggest an optimal target concentration range for VEN oral formulations for the treatment of depression. METHODS: Four databases (MEDLINE (PubMed), PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, and Cochrane Library) were systematically searched in March 2022 for relevant articles according to a previously published protocol. Reviewers independently screened references and performed data extraction and critical appraisal. RESULTS: High-quality randomized controlled trials investigating concentration/efficacy relationships and studies using a placebo lead-in phase were not found. Sixty-eight articles, consisting mostly of naturalistic TDM studies or small noncontrolled studies, met the eligibility criteria. Of them, five cohort studies reported a positive correlation between blood levels and antidepressant effects after VEN treatment. Our meta-analyses showed (i) higher AM and (ii) higher ODV concentrations in patients responding to VEN treatment when compared to non-responders (n = 360, k = 5). AM concentration-dependent occurrence of tremor was reported in one study. We found a linear relationship between daily dose and AM concentration within guideline recommended doses (75-225 mg/day). The population-based concentration ranges (25-75% interquartile) among 11 studies (n = 3200) using flexible dosing were (i) 225-450 ng/ml for the AM and (ii) 144-302 ng/ml for ODV. One PET study reported an occupancy of 80% serotonin transporters for ODV serum levels above 85 ng/ml. Based on our findings, we propose a therapeutic reference range for AM of 140-600 ng/ml. CONCLUSION: VEN TDM within a range of 140 to 600 ng/ml (AM) will increase the probability of response in nonresponders. A titration within the proposed reference range is recommended in case of non-response at lower drug concentrations as a consequence of VEN's dual mechanism of action via combined serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibition. Drug titration towards higher concentrations will, however, increase the risk for ADRs, in particular with supratherapeutic drug concentrations.

A posterior-alpha ageing network is differentially associated with antidepressant effects of venlafaxine and rTMS.

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a highly prevalent psychiatric disorder, but chances for remission largely decrease with each failed treatment attempt. It is therefore desirable to assign a given patient to the most promising individual treatment option as early as possible. We used a polygenic score (PGS) informed electroencephalography (EEG) data-driven approach to identify potential predictors for MDD treatment outcome. Post-hoc we conducted exploratory analyses in order to understand the results in depth. First, an EEG independent component analysis produced 54 functional brain networks in a large heterogeneous cohort of psychiatric patients (n = 4,045; 5-84 yrs.). Next, the network that was associated to PGS for antidepressant-response (PRS-AR) in an independent sample (n = 722) was selected: an age-related posterior alpha network that explained >60 % of EEG variance, and was highly stable over recording time. Translational analyses were performed in two other independent datasets to examine if the network was predictive of psychopharmacotherapy (n = 535) and/or repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and concomitant psychotherapy (PT; n = 186) outcome. The network predicted remission to venlafaxine (p = 0.015), resulting in a normalized positive predicted value (nPPV) of 138 %, and rTMS + PT - but in opposite direction for women (p = 0.002) relative to men (p = 0.018) - yielding a nPPV of 131 %. Blinded out-of-sample validations for venlafaxine (n = 29) and rTMS + PT (n = 36) confirmed the findings for venlafaxine, while results for rTMS + PT could not be replicated. These data suggest the existence of a relatively stable EEG posterior alpha aging network related to PGS-AR that has potential as MDD treatment predictor.

Pharmacological treatments in panic disorder in adults: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A panic attack is a discrete period of fear or anxiety that has a rapid onset and reaches a peak within 10 minutes. The main symptoms involve bodily systems, such as racing heart, chest pain, sweating, shaking, dizziness, flushing, churning stomach, faintness and breathlessness. Other recognised panic attack symptoms involve fearful cognitions, such as the fear of collapse, going mad or dying, and derealisation (the sensation that the world is unreal). Panic disorder is common in the general population with a prevalence of 1% to 4%. The treatment of panic disorder includes psychological and pharmacological interventions, including antidepressants and benzodiazepines. OBJECTIVES: To compare, via network meta-analysis, individual drugs (antidepressants and benzodiazepines) or placebo in terms of efficacy and acceptability in the acute treatment of panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia. To rank individual active drugs for panic disorder (antidepressants, benzodiazepines and placebo) according to their effectiveness and acceptability. To rank drug classes for panic disorder (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), mono-amine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and benzodiazepines (BDZs) and placebo) according to their effectiveness and acceptability. To explore heterogeneity and inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence in a network meta-analysis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Specialised Register, CENTRAL, CDSR, MEDLINE, Ovid Embase and PsycINFO to 26 May 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people aged 18 years or older of either sex and any ethnicity with clinically diagnosed panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia. We included trials that compared the effectiveness of antidepressants and benzodiazepines with each other or with a placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We analysed dichotomous data and continuous data as risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD): response to treatment (i.e. substantial improvement from baseline as defined by the original investigators: dichotomous outcome), total number of dropouts due to any reason (as a proxy measure of treatment acceptability: dichotomous outcome), remission (i.e. satisfactory end state as defined by global judgement of the original investigators: dichotomous outcome), panic symptom scales and global judgement (continuous outcome), frequency of panic attacks (as recorded, for example, by a panic diary; continuous outcome), agoraphobia (dichotomous outcome). We assessed the certainty of evidence using threshold analyses. MAIN RESULTS: Overall, we included 70 trials in this review. Sample sizes ranged between 5 and 445 participants in each arm, and the total sample size per study ranged from 10 to 1168. Thirty-five studies included sample sizes of over 100 participants. There is evidence from 48 RCTs (N = 10,118) that most medications are more effective in the response outcome than placebo. In particular, diazepam, alprazolam, clonazepam, paroxetine, venlafaxine, clomipramine, fluoxetine and adinazolam showed the strongest effect, with diazepam, alprazolam and clonazepam ranking as the most effective. We found heterogeneity in most of the comparisons, but our threshold analyses suggest that this is unlikely to impact the findings of the network meta-analysis. Results from 64 RCTs (N = 12,310) suggest that most medications are associated with either a reduced or similar risk of dropouts to placebo. Alprazolam and diazepam were associated with a lower dropout rate compared to placebo and were ranked as the most tolerated of all the medications examined. Thirty-two RCTs (N = 8569) were included in the remission outcome. Most medications were more effective than placebo, namely desipramine, fluoxetine, clonazepam, diazepam, fluvoxamine, imipramine, venlafaxine and paroxetine, and their effects were clinically meaningful. Amongst these medications, desipramine and alprazolam were ranked highest. Thirty-five RCTs (N = 8826) are included in the continuous outcome reduction in panic scale scores. Brofaromine, clonazepam and reboxetine had the strongest reductions in panic symptoms compared to placebo, but results were based on either one trial or very small trials. Forty-one RCTs (N = 7853) are included in the frequency of panic attack outcome. Only clonazepam and alprazolam showed a strong reduction in the frequency of panic attacks compared to placebo, and were ranked highest. Twenty-six RCTs (N = 7044) provided data for agoraphobia. The strongest reductions in agoraphobia symptoms were found for citalopram, reboxetine, escitalopram, clomipramine and diazepam, compared to placebo. For the pooled intervention classes, we examined the two primary outcomes (response and dropout). The classes of medication were: SSRIs, SNRIs, TCAs, MAOIs and BDZs. For the response outcome, all classes of medications examined were more effective than placebo. TCAs as a class ranked as the most effective, followed by BDZs and MAOIs. SSRIs as a class ranked fifth on average, while SNRIs were ranked lowest. When we compared classes of medication with each other for the response outcome, we found no difference between classes. Comparisons between MAOIs and TCAs and between BDZs and TCAs also suggested no differences between these medications, but the results were imprecise. For the dropout outcome, BDZs were the only class associated with a lower dropout compared to placebo and were ranked first in terms of tolerability. The other classes did not show any difference in dropouts compared to placebo. In terms of ranking, TCAs are on average second to BDZs, followed by SNRIs, then by SSRIs and lastly by MAOIs. BDZs were associated with lower dropout rates compared to SSRIs, SNRIs and TCAs. The quality of the studies comparing antidepressants with placebo was moderate, while the quality of the studies comparing BDZs with placebo and antidepressants was low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In terms of efficacy, SSRIs, SNRIs (venlafaxine), TCAs, MAOIs and BDZs may be effective, with little difference between classes. However, it is important to note that the reliability of these findings may be limited due to the overall low quality of the studies, with all having unclear or high risk of bias across multiple domains. Within classes, some differences emerged. For example, amongst the SSRIs paroxetine and fluoxetine seem to have stronger evidence of efficacy than sertraline. Benzodiazepines appear to have a small but significant advantage in terms of tolerability (incidence of dropouts) over other classes.

The Relationship of Early Sleep Improvement With Response to Pharmacotherapy in Unipolar Psychotic Depression.

BACKGROUND: Since insomnia and depression are interrelated, improved sleep early in antidepressant pharmacotherapy may predict a positive treatment outcome. We investigated whether early insomnia improvement (EII) predicted treatment outcome in psychotic depression (PD) and examined if there was an interaction effect between EII and treatment type to assess if findings were treatment-specific. METHODS: This study is a secondary analysis of a randomized trial comparing 7 weeks treatment with the antidepressants venlafaxine, imipramine and venlafaxine plus the antipsychotic quetiapine in PD ( n = 114). Early insomnia improvement, defined as ≥20% reduced insomnia after 2 weeks, was assessed by the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-17). Associations between EII and treatment outcome were examined using logistic regressions. Subsequently, we added interaction terms between EII and treatment type to assess interaction effects. The predictive value of EII was compared with early response on overall depression (≥20% reduced HAM-D-17 score after 2 weeks). RESULTS: EII was associated with response (odds ratio [OR], 7.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.7-23.4; P = <0.001), remission of depression (OR, 6.1; 95% CI, 1.6-22.3; P = 0.009), and remission of psychosis (OR, 4.1; 95% CI, 1.6-10.9; P = 0.004). We found no interaction effects between EII and treatment type on depression outcome. Early insomnia improvement and early response on overall depression had a comparable predictive ability for treatment outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Early insomnia improvement was associated with a positive outcome in pharmacotherapy of PD, regardless of the medication type. Future studies are needed to confirm our findings and to examine the generalizability of EII as predictor in treatment of depression.

VE-MMODE - A randomized controlled trial of Venlafaxine versus Escitalopram for treatment of mild to moderate depression in persons with epilepsy.

OBJECTIVES: Depression in persons with epilepsy (PWE) goes undiagnosed and untreated. Despite being common, there are no direct efficacy comparisons of available antidepressants in PWE. Our aim was to compare the effectiveness of Venlafaxine (VEN) and Escitalopram (ESCIT) in comorbid depression in PWE. METHODS: In a single-center, prospective, double-blinded randomized controlled trial (RCT) 90 PWE (age ≥18 years) with mild to moderate depression, were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive ESCIT (5-20 mg/day) or VEN (37.5-150 mg/day) for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was to study differences in the efficacy, based on the change in scores of the Hamilton depression rating scale (HAM-D) at 8 weeks. Seizure frequency, QOLIE-31, adverse event profile, and medication adherence were secondary outcome measures. RESULTS: Using the NDDI-E scale, we screened 350 PWE, 90 were enrolled. ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 40 participants to VEN group and 42 to ESCIT group. Baseline mean (±SD) HAM-D scores for both groups were similar (13.53 ± 3.27; 13.02 ± 3.57). The mean difference (95%CI) on HAM-D scores at 8 weeks was found to be significant within both groups (ITT/PP- VEN: 7.75(6.75, 8.79)/7.92 (7.06, 8.78); p < 0.001, ESCIT: 8.21 (7.39, 9.03)/8.23(7.43, 9.04); p < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the efficacy of VEN versus ESCIT at 8 weeks. A significant improvement in QOLIE-31 index and seizure frequency was observed from baseline in both the groups. 90% of those on VEN and 92.9% of those using ESCITadhered to the treatment at week 8. Adverse events were more in VEN group than the ESCIT group. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that HAMD scores improved significantly in the ESCIT and VEN groups, despite the fact that there was no clinically meaningful difference observed between the two groups. Trials with a larger sample size and longer duration are required to establish whether ESCIT or VEN is superior.

Treatment-Resistant Depression (TRD): Is the Opioid System Involved?

About 30% of major depression disorder patients fail to achieve remission, hence being diagnosed with treatment-resistant major depression (TRD). Opium had been largely used effectively to treat depression for centuries, but when other medications were introduced, its use was discounted due to addiction and other hazards. In a series of previous studies, we evaluated the antinociceptive effects of eight antidepressant medications and their interaction with the opioid system. Mice were tested with a hotplate or tail-flick after being injected with different doses of mianserin, mirtazapine, trazodone, venlafaxine, reboxetine, moclobemide, fluoxetine, or fluvoxamine to determine the effect of each drug in eliciting antinociception. When naloxone inhibited the antinociceptive effect, we further examined the effect of the specific opioid antagonists of each antidepressant drug. Mianserin and mirtazapine (separately) induced dose-dependent antinociception, each one yielding a biphasic dose-response curve, and they were antagonized by naloxone. Trazodone and venlafaxine (separately) induced a dose-dependent antinociceptive effect, antagonized by naloxone. Reboxetine induced a weak antinociceptive effect with no significant opioid involvement, while moclobemide, fluoxetine, and fluvoxamine had no opioid-involved antinociceptive effects. Controlled clinical studies are needed to establish the efficacy of the augmentation of opiate antidepressants in persons with treatment-resistant depression and the optimal dosage of drugs prescribed.

Moving from serotonin to serotonin-norepinephrine enhancement with increasing venlafaxine dose: clinical implications and strategies for a successful outcome in major depressive disorder.

INTRODUCTION: Mental health disorders, especially depressive and anxiety disorders, are associated with substantial health-related burden. While the second-generation antidepressants are widely accepted as first-line pharmacological treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD), patient response to such treatment is variable, with more than half failing to achieve complete remission, and residual symptoms are frequently present. AREAS COVERED: Here, the pharmacodynamics of venlafaxine XR are reviewed in relation to its role as both a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) and a serotonin-norepinephrine-reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), and we look at how these pharmacodynamic properties can be harnessed to guide clinical practice, asking the question 'is it possible to develop a symptom-cluster-based approach to the treatment of MDD with comorbid anxiety utilizing venlafaxine XR?.' Additionally, three illustrative clinical cases provide practical examples of the utility of venlafaxine-XR in real-world clinical practice. The place of venlafaxine XR in managing fatigue/low energy, a frequent residual symptom in MDD, is explored using pooled data from clinical trials of venlafaxine XR. EXPERT OPINION: Venlafaxine XR should be considered as a first-line treatment for MDD with or without comorbid anxiety, and there are clear pharmacodynamic signals supporting a symptom cluster-based treatment paradigm for venlafaxine XR.