Combination of antidepressant medications from treatment initiation for major depressive disorder: a double-blind randomized study.

OBJECTIVE: Various classes of antidepressant medications generally induce remission of major depressive disorder in only about one-third of patients. In a previous study using mirtazapine or paroxetine alone or in combination from treatment initiation, the rate of patients who remitted within a 6-week period was twice that of patients using either drug alone. In this double-blind study, the authors sought to produce evidence for the superiority of different combinations of antidepressant drugs from treatment initiation. METHOD: Patients (N=105) meeting DSM-IV criteria for major depressive disorder were randomly assigned to receive, from treatment initiation, either fluoxetine monotherapy (20 mg/day) or mirtazapine (30 mg/day) in combination with fluoxetine (20 mg/day), venlafaxine (225 mg/day titrated in 14 days), or bupropion (150 mg/day) for 6 weeks. The primary outcome measure was the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) score. RESULTS: The overall dropout rate was 15%, without notable differences among the four groups. Compared with fluoxetine monotherapy, all three combination groups had significantly greater improvements on the HAM-D. Remission rates (defined as a HAM-D score of 7 or less) were 25% for fluoxetine, 52% for mirtazapine plus fluoxetine, 58% for mirtazapine plus venlafaxine, and 46% for mirtazapine plus bupropion. Among patients who had a marked response, double-blind discontinuation of one agent produced a relapse in about 40% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: The combination treatments were as well tolerated as fluoxetine monotherapy and more clinically effective. The study results, which add to a growing body of evidence, suggest that use of antidepressant combinations from treatment initiation may double the likelihood of remission compared with use of a single medication.

Mirtazapine and paroxetine in major depression: a comparison of monotherapy versus their combination from treatment initiation.

This double-blind study compared initial combination therapy against monotherapy using two antidepressant drugs with complementary mechanisms of action on the serotonin (5-HT) and norepinephrine (NE) systems. Sixty one adult patients with a DSM-IV diagnosis of unipolar depression were randomized to receive mirtazapine (30 mg/day), paroxetine (20 mg/day), or the combination of both drugs for 6 weeks. Response at week 4 was defined as a 30% reduction in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), and at week 6 as a 50% reduction in the MADRS. Remission was defined as a reduction in the MADRS score to 10 points or less. After 4 weeks, non-responders in the monotherapy groups had their medication dose increased by 50%. After 6 weeks, non-responders on monotherapy had the second trial drug added to their current regimen. Non-responders on combination therapy had the dosage of both drugs increased by 50%. There was a significantly greater decrease in MADRS scores in the combination group compared to the monotherapy groups at days 28, 35 and 42, with a 10 point difference separating the combination from the monotherapies at day 42. Remission rates at week 6 were 19% on mirtazapine, 26% on paroxetine, and 43% on the combination. Fifteen patients in the mirtazapine arm and 10 in the paroxetine arm who did not respond had the other drug added to their current regimen, and 5 on the combination had an increase in dose of both drugs secondary to non-response. Of these 30 patients, approximately 50% went on to achieve remission in the subsequent 2 weeks. These results indicate that the combined use of two antidepressants was well tolerated and produced a greater improvement than monotherapy.

Comparison of pharmacokinetic profiles of brand-name and generic formulations of citalopram and venlafaxine: a crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Generic drugs are lower-cost versions of patent-expired brand-name medications. Bioequivalence is decreed when the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of the generic to the reference compound for the area under the curve and maximum plasma concentration (C(max)) fall within a 0.80 to 1.25 range. The aim of the present pilot study was to compare the pharmacokinetic profiles of brand-name and generic formulations of citalopram and extended-release venlafaxine. METHOD: Effexor XR/Novo-venlafaxine XR 75 mg and Celexa/Gen-citalopram 40 mg were studied in a randomized crossover design. Healthy male volunteers took either Effexor XR or Novo-venlafaxine XR for 4 days, a 4-day washout was allowed, and then participants took the other venlafaxine formulation for 4 days. This was followed by a washout of at least 7 days. The participants then took Celexa or Gen-citalopram for 8 days, a 14-day washout was allowed, and then participants took the other citalopram formulation for 8 days. In each of the study phases, the sequence of treatment (brand-name x generic) was randomly assigned. Plasma levels of drugs were measured at fixed intervals after participants took the drugs and at steady state. The study was conducted from November 2007 through July 2008. RESULTS: Twelve participants completed the venlafaxine study. Nine of the participants, plus 3 new participants, were then enrolled in the citalopram study, to maintain a total of 12. The plasma levels of citalopram were similar after ingestion of the brand-name and generic drugs. After ingestion of venlafaxine, the C(max) values were 36 +/- 6 ng/mL and 52 +/- 8 ng/mL in the brand-name and generic groups, respectively. The ratio of the log-transformed values of C(max) was 150% and, therefore, not within the acceptable 80% to 125% range. The concentration of the active metabolite of venlafaxine (O-desmethyl-venlafaxine [ODV]) was also significantly increased in the generic group (+43% higher in the generic group at 3 h; +48% higher at 5 h; p < .05). No differences were seen at steady state for either ODV or venlafaxine. Participants taking Novo-venlafaxine reported 3 times more side effects than those taking Effexor XR. Pill contents were identical in the 2 groups, but extraction of venlafaxine occurred more readily with the generic formulation than with the brand-name formulation, which required an additional sonication. CONCLUSION: Gen-citalopram appeared to be bioequivalent to Celexa, whereas Novo-venlafaxine XR was not bioequivalent to Effexor XR. Consequently, the Novo-venlafaxine formulation released its active ingredient more rapidly and outside the acceptable norm. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00676039.

Effects of different doses of venlafaxine on serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake in healthy volunteers.

Venlafaxine is generally considered to be a dual 5-HT and NE reuptake inhibitor when it is used at doses above 75 mg/d in humans. While its 5-HT reuptake-inhibiting property has been demonstrated, some controversy still exists regarding the doses of venlafaxine required to inhibit NE reuptake. Healthy male volunteers received, on a double-blind basis, paroxetine (20 mg/d), desipramine (100 mg/d), nefazodone (300 mg/d), or venlafaxine (150 or 300 mg/d) in the last 5 d of a 7-d period of administration. Inhibition of 5-HT reuptake was estimated by determining the degree of depletion of whole-blood 5-HT, while that of NE was assessed by measuring the attenuation of the systolic blood pressure increases produced by intravenous injections of tyramine. Paroxetine, both regimens of venlafaxine, and to a lesser extent desipramine significantly decreased whole-blood 5-HT content. Nefazodone failed to produce any significant change. Desipramine abolished the tyramine pressor response, whereas all other drug regimens left this parameter unaltered. Venlafaxine and paroxetine acted as potent 5-HT reuptake inhibitors in the present study. In contrast, neither the moderate nor the high dose of venlafaxine displayed any significant inhibiting activity in this model assessing NE reuptake in peripheral NE terminals. The validity of the model was confirmed by the potent inhibitory action of desipramine on NE reuptake. While the reasons for this unexpected lack of action remain unclear, venlafaxine appeared to be an effective NE reuptake agent in depressed patients using the same approach.

Differential physiological effects of a low dose and high doses of venlafaxine in major depression.

Venlafaxine is an antidepressant drug with demonstrated serotonin (5-HT) and norepinephrine (NE) reuptake blockade properties in electrophysiological and microdialysis experiments in laboratory animals. In healthy volunteers, its 5-HT reuptake-inhibiting potential has also been clearly documented, but not its NE reuptake blockade action. This double-blind study compared the effects of a low dose (75 mg) and of a forced titration of high (up to 375 mg in 1 wk) daily doses of venlafaxine. Forty-four patients with major depression according to DSM-IV criteria were assessed bi-weekly for the first 2 wk and weekly for the next 2 wk. Inhibition of 5-HT reuptake was estimated using the depletion of whole-blood 5-HT, while that of NE was assessed using the attenuation of the systolic blood-pressure elevations produced by intravenous injections of tyramine. Forty-two patients completed the study. Both the low and the high doses of venlafaxine decreased the levels of 5-HT to the same extent: the reduction was of about 55% after 1 wk and of 75% after 4 wk. The 75 mg/d dose of venlafaxine did not alter the tyramine pressor response, whereas, in patients receiving the higher regimens of venlafaxine, there was a significant attenuation of the pressor effect of tyramine. There was no significant difference between the two treatment arms regarding the modifications of the depression scores. The present data showed that, at its minimal effective dose in depression (75 mg/d), venlafaxine acted as a selective 5-HT reuptake inhibitor, whereas when administered at higher doses (225 and 375 mg/d), it acted as a dual 5-HT and NE reuptake inhibitor.