Efficacy of levomilnacipran extended-release in major depressive disorder: pooled analysis of 5 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials

Recent Developments in Pharmacotherapy of Depression: Bench to Bedside

For the last 70 years, we did not move beyond the monoamine hypothesis of depression until the approval of the S-enantiomer of ketamine, an N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor blocker and the first non-monoaminergic antidepressant characterized by rapid antidepressant and antisuicidal effects. A similar profile has been reported with another NMDA receptor antagonist, dextromethorphan, which has also been approved to manage depression in combination with bupropion. More recently, the approval of a positive allosteric modulator of GABA-A receptors, brexanolone, has added to the list of recent breakthroughs with the relatively rapid onset of antidepressant efficacy. However, multiple factors have compromised the clinical utility of these exciting discoveries in the general population, including high drug acquisition costs, mandatory monitoring requirements, parenteral drug administration, lack of insurance coverage, indirect COVID-19 effects on healthcare systems, and training gaps in psychopharmacology. This narrative review aims to analyze the clinical pharmacology of recently approved antidepressants and discuss potential barriers to the bench-to-bedside transfer of knowledge and clinical application of exciting recent discoveries. Overall, clinically meaningful advances in the treatment of depression have not reached a large proportion of depressed patients, including those with treatment-resistant depression, who might benefit the most from the novel antidepressants.

The intestinal microbiota as a predictor for antidepressant treatment outcome in geriatric depression: a prospective pilot study

OBJECTIVES

(1) To investigate if gut microbiota can be a predictor of remission in geriatric depression and to identify features of the gut microbiota that is associated with remission. (2) To determine if changes in gut microbiota occur with remission in geriatric depression.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of a parent randomized placebo-controlled trial (NCT02466958).

SETTING

Los Angeles, CA, USA (2016-2018).

PARTICIPANTS

Seventeen subjects with major depressive disorder, over 60 years of age, 41.2% female.

INTERVENTION

Levomilacipran (LVM) or placebo.

MEASUREMENTS

Remission was defined by Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score of 6 or less at 12 weeks. 16S-ribosomal RNA sequencing based fecal microbiota composition and diversity were measured at baseline and 12 weeks. Differences in fecal microbiota were evaluated between remitters and non-remitters as well as between baseline and post-treatment samples. LVM and placebo groups were combined in all the analyses.

RESULTS

Baseline microbiota showed no community level α-diversity or β-diversity differences between remitters and non-remitters. At the individual taxa level, a random forest classifier created with nine genera from the baseline microbiota was highly accurate in predicting remission (AUC = .857). Of these, baseline enrichment of Faecalibacterium, Agathobacter and Roseburia relative to a reference frame was associated with treatment outcome of remission. Differential abundance analysis revealed significant genus level changes from baseline to post-treatment in remitters, but not in non-remitters.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study demonstrating fecal microbiota as a potential predictor of treatment response in geriatric depression. Our findings need to be confirmed in larger prospective studies.

Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of Ansofaxine (LY03005) Extended-Release Tablet for Major Depressive Disorder: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Dose-Finding, Phase 2 Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Ansofaxine (LY03005) extended-release tablet is a potential triple reuptake inhibitor of serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine. This study assessed the efficacy, safety, and appropriate dosage of ansofaxine for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHODS

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding, Phase 2 clinical trial was conducted in China. Eligible patients with MDD (18-65 years) were randomly assigned to receive fixed-dose ansofaxine extended-release tablets (40, 80, 120, or 160 mg/d) or placebo for 6 weeks. The primary outcome measure was a change in the total score on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale from baseline to week 6.

RESULTS

A total of 260 patients were recruited from October 2015 to September 2017, and 255 patients received the study drug as follows: 40 mg (n = 52), 80 mg (n = 52), 120 mg (n = 51), and 160 mg (n = 51) ansofaxine and placebo (n = 49). Significant differences were found in mean changes in 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale total scores at week 6 in the 4 ansofaxine groups vs placebo (-12.46; χ2 = -9.71, P = .0447). All doses of ansofaxine were generally well-tolerated. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 141 patients (303 cases), yielding incidence rates of 51.92%, 65.38%, 56.86%, and 62.75% in the 40-, 80-, 120-, and 160-mg ansofaxine groups and 38.78% in the placebo group.

CONCLUSION

Active doses (40, 80, 120, and 160 mg/d) of ansofaxine in a controlled setting were safe, tolerated, and effective in improving depression symptoms in MDD patients.

Cortical thickness increases with levomilnacipran treatment in a pilot randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial in late-life depression

BACKGROUND

Late-life depression (LLD) is associated with significant medical comorbidity, cognitive impairment, and suboptimal treatment response compared to depression experienced earlier in life. Levomilnacipran (LVM) is a novel antidepressant the effects of which on neuroplasticity have not yet been investigated. We investigated the effect of LVM on cortical thickness in a pilot randomised placebo-controlled trial in LLD.

METHODS

Twenty-nine adults (≥ 60 years) with major depression (48.3% female; mean age = 71.5 ± 5.8 years; mean education = 16.0 ± 1.7 years) were randomised to either LVM or placebo for 12 weeks. T1-weighted images were acquired at baseline and 12 weeks. Thirteen subjects (six LVM and seven placebo) completed the study. Group differences in cortical thickness change across the study period were evaluated, with age and total intracranial volume included as covariates.

RESULTS

Dropout rates did not differ significantly between groups. The LVM group had significantly more side effects, but no serious adverse events were reported. Lower LVM dose (≤ 40 mg) was better tolerated than higher doses (80-120 mg). Additionally, the LVM group showed a larger increase in cortical thickness in the right postcentral gyrus (primary somatosensory), supramarginal gyrus (sensory association region), and lateral occipital cortex (visual cortex) compared to the placebo group and greater reductions in the left insula.

CONCLUSIONS

LVM may be less tolerable by older adults with depression and the effects on cortical thickness across sensory and sensory association regions may be related to the experience of side effects. Larger studies are necessary to evaluate treatment efficacy, tolerability, and neural effects of LVM in LLD.

Management of Late-Life Depression

Depression is a common disorder in late life that is associated with poor quality of life, increased disability, and increased all-cause mortality. Rates of completed suicide are the highest in older depressed men compared with any other age group. In this age group, depression is often concurrent with medical illness and it can aggravate the course of medical illness. Cognitive impairment is frequently present and may be the result of the depression itself or may be the consequence of a neurodegenerative disorder such as Alzheimer's disease. Evidence-based psychotherapies, antidepressants, and somatic treatments such as electroconvulsive therapy are employed in the treatment of older depressed adults. Treatment may be complicated by the presence of cognitive impairment, other comorbid medical disorders, and medications used to treat these disorders. Certain safety issues such as increased bleeding risk, hyponatremia, decreased bone density and falls may be associated with antidepressant treatment, may be more common in older depressed adults, and their consequences may be more severe in late life. These risks, however, need to be weighed against the hazards of untreated depression. With appropriate care, most older depressed patients can be successfully treated and a positive outcome can have a significant effect on the patient's quality of life.

Serotonin and Norepinephrine Reuptake Inhibitors

This chapter covers antidepressants that fall into the class of serotonin (5-HT) and norepinephrine (NE) reuptake inhibitors. That is, they bind to the 5-HT and NE transporters with varying levels of potency and binding affinity ratios. Unlike the selective serotonin (5-HT) reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), most of these antidepressants have an ascending rather than a flat dose-response curve. The chapter provides a brief review of the chemistry, pharmacology, metabolism, safety and adverse effects, clinical use, and therapeutic indications of each antidepressant. Venlafaxine, a phenylethylamine, is a relatively weak 5-HT and weaker NE uptake inhibitor with a 30-fold difference in binding of the two transporters. Therefore, the drug has a clear dose progression, with low doses predominantly binding to the 5-HT transporter and more binding of the NE transporter as the dose ascends. Venlafaxine is metabolized to the active metabolite O-desmethylvenlafaxine (ODV; desvenlafaxine) by CYP2D6, and it therefore is subject to significant inter-individual variation in blood levels and response dependent on variations in CYP2D6 metabolism. The half-life of venlafaxine is short at about 5 h, with the ODV metabolite being 12 h. Both parent compound and metabolite have low protein binding and neither inhibit CYP enzymes. Therefore, both venlafaxine and desvenlafaxine are potential options if drug-drug interactions are a concern, although venlafaxine may be subject to drug-drug interactions with CYP2D6 inhibitors. At low doses, the adverse effect profile is similar to an SSRI with nausea, diarrhea, fatigue or somnolence, and sexual side effects, while venlafaxine at higher doses can produce mild increases in blood pressure, diaphoresis, tachycardia, tremors, and anxiety. A disadvantage of venlafaxine relative to the SSRIs is the potential for dose-dependent blood pressure elevation, most likely due to the NE reuptake inhibition caused by higher doses; however, this adverse effect is infrequently observed at doses below 225 mg per day. Venlafaxine also has a number of potential advantages over the SSRIs, including an ascending dose-antidepressant response curve, with possibly greater overall efficacy at higher doses. Venlafaxine is approved for MDD as well as generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, and panic disorder. Desvenlafaxine is the primary metabolite of venlafaxine, and it is also a relatively low-potency 5-HT and NE uptake inhibitor. Like venlafaxine it has a favorable drug-drug interaction profile. It is subject to CYP3A4 metabolism, and it is therefore vulnerable to enzyme inhibition or induction. However, the primary metabolic pathway is direct conjugation. It is approved in the narrow dose range of 50-100 mg per day. Duloxetine is a more potent 5-HT and NE reuptake inhibitor with a more balanced profile of binding at about 10:1 for 5HT and NE transporter binding. It is also a moderate inhibitor of CYP2D6, so that modest dose reductions and careful monitoring will be needed when prescribing duloxetine in combination with drugs that are preferentially metabolized by CYP2D6. The most common side effects identified in clinical trials are nausea, dry mouth, dizziness, constipation, insomnia, asthenia, and hypertension, consistent with its mechanisms of action. Clinical trials to date have demonstrated rates of response and remission in patients with major depression that are comparable to other marketed antidepressants reviewed in this book. In addition to approval for MDD, duloxetine is approved for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, and musculoskeletal pain. Milnacipran is marketed as an antidepressant in some countries, but not in the USA. It is approved in the USA and some other countries as a treatment for fibromyalgia. It has few pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions with other drugs. Milnacipran has a half-life of about 10 h and therefore needs to be administered twice per day. It is metabolized by CYP3A4, but the major pathway for clearance is direct conjugation and renal elimination. As with other drugs in this class, dysuria is a common, troublesome, and dose-dependent adverse effect (occurring in up to 7% of patients). High-dose milnacipran has been reported to cause blood pressure and pulse elevations. Levomilnacipran is the levorotary enantiomer of milnacipran, and it is pharmacologically very similar to the racemic compound, although the side effects may be milder within the approved dosing range. As with other NE uptake inhibitors, it may increase blood pressure and pulse, although it appears to do so less than some other medications. All medications in the class can cause serotonin syndrome when combined with MAOIs.

Effects of levomilnacipran ER on noradrenergic symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and functional impairment in adults with major depressive disorder: Post hoc analysis of 5 clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of levomilnacipran extended-release (LVM-ER; 40-120mg/day) on noradrenergic (NA) and anxiety-related symptoms in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) and explore the relationship between these symptoms and functional impairment.

METHODS

Data were pooled from 5 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (N=2598). Anxiety and NA Cluster scores were developed by adding selected item scores from the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD₁₇). A path analysis was conducted to estimate the direct effects of LVM-ER on functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale [SDS] total score) and the indirect effects through changes in NA and Anxiety Cluster scores.

RESULTS

Mean improvements from baseline in NA and Anxiety Cluster scores were significantly greater with LVM-ER versus placebo (both P<0.001), as were the response rates (≥50% score improvement): NA Cluster (44% vs 34%; odds ratio=1.56; P<0.0001); Anxiety Cluster (39% vs 36%; odds ratio=1.19; P=0.041). Mean improvement in SDS total score was also significantly greater with LVM-ER versus placebo (-7.3 vs -5.6; P<0.0001). LVM-ER had an indirect effect on change in SDS total score that was mediated more strongly through NA Cluster score change (86%) than Anxiety Cluster score change (18%); the direct effect was negligible.

LIMITATIONS

NA and Anxiety Cluster scores, developed based on the face validity of individual MADRS and HAMD₁₇ items, were not predefined as efficacy outcomes in any of the studies.

CONCLUSION

In adults with MDD, LVM-ER indirectly improved functional impairment mainly through improvements in NA symptoms and less so via anxiety symptoms.

What does the MADRS mean? Equipercentile linking with the CGI using a company database of mirtazapine studies

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the clinical relevance of the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total scores. It is unclear how total scores translate into clinical severity, or how commonly used measures for response (reduction from baseline of ≥50% in the total score) translate into clinical relevance. Moreover, MADRS based definitions of remission vary.

METHODS

We therefore compared: a/ the MADRS total score with the Clinical Global Impression - Severity Score (CGI-S) b/ the percentage and absolute change in the MADRS total scores with Clinical Global Impression - Improvement (CGI-I); c/ the absolute and percentage change in the MADRS total scores with CGI-S absolute change. The method used was equipercentile linking of MADRS and CGI ratings from 22 drug trials in patients with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) (n=3288).

RESULTS

Our results confirm the validity of the commonly used measures for response in MDD trials: a CGI-I score of 2 ('much improved') corresponded to a percentage MADRS reduction from baseline of 48-57%, and a CGI-I score of 1 ('very much improved') to a reduction of 80-84%. If a state of almost complete absence of symptoms were required for a definition of remission, a MADRS total score would be <8, because such scores corresponded to a CGI-S score of 2 ('borderline mentally ill').

LIMITATIONS

Although our analysis is based on a large number of patients, the original trials were not specifically designed to examine our research question.

CONCLUSIONS

The results might contribute to a better understanding and improved interpretation of clinical trial results in MDD.

The Role of Levomilnacipran in the Management of Major Depressive Disorder: A Comprehensive Review

Levomilnacipran, the more active enantiomer of the serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) milnacipran, was recently approved in the US for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). The drug was developed as an extended release (ER) capsule formulation to allow for once-daily administration, thereby improving patient adherence. This agent differs from other available SNRIs in having a greater potency for inhibition of norepinephrine relative to serotonin reuptake. The efficacy of levomilnacipran ER has been evaluated in seven randomised, double-blind clinical trials (one Phase II and four Phase III trials, and two long-term efficacy studies). These studies documented that levomilnacipran is generally more effective than placebo for the treatment of MDD in the short-term, whereas no firm evidence exists on long-term efficacy for relapse prevention. Preliminary evidence suggests that levomilnacipran ER may be effective in improving not only depressive symptoms but also symptoms related to functioning (social life, work, and family life). Short-and longer-term studies found that the rate of withdrawal from levomilnacipran therapy due to adverse events was rather low. Moreover the drug appeared to be generally well tolerated. The most common adverse effects included nausea, hyperhidrosis, constipation, tachycardia, palpitations, erectile dysfunction and ejaculation disorder. As hypertension or orthostatic hypotension may occur in a few patients, the cardiovascular safety of levomilnacipran needs to be more extensively investigated especially on long-term treatment. Additional active comparator trials evaluating efficacy, tolerability and cost-effectiveness are required to better define the role of levomilnacipran ER in the treatment of MDD in relation to currently available antidepressants including other SNRIs.

Efficacy and safety of multiple doses of levomilnacipran extended-release for the treatment of major depressive disorder

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of levomilnacipran extended-release (ER) in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials were searched by electronic databases. Unpublished data were also searched by the relevant websites. Weighted mean difference (WMD) and risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated and pooled using fixed-effects model or random-effects model.

RESULTS

Five randomized placebo-controlled trials including 2,637 patients were analyzed. Compared with placebo, levomilnacipran ER had a greater reduction in the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score and Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) total score (MADRS: WMD -3.49 [95% CI -4.28, -2.70; P<0.00001]; SDS: WMD -2.41 [95% CI -3.05, -1.77; P<0.00001]). Significantly more patients in levomilnacipran ER achieved MADRS response rate (RR 1.35 [95% CI 1.23, 1.47; P<0.00001]) and MADRS remission rate (RR 1.30 [95% CI 1.06, 1.59; P=0.01]). In terms of safety, more patients discontinued due to adverse events (AEs) in levomilnacipran ER compared with placebo (RR 3.15 [95% CI 2.26, 4.39; P<0.00001]), but it was generally well tolerated in each eligible trial. The most common AEs were nausea, delay in ejaculation, erectile dysfunction, tachycardia, headache and increase in heart rate.

CONCLUSION

Levomilnacipran ER is a safe and effective short-term treatment for MDD (≤10 weeks). Long-term and head-to-head trials comparing levomilnacipran ER with other antidepressants are needed to confirm the conclusion.

The efficacy of levomilnacipran ER across symptoms of major depressive disorder: a post hoc analysis of 5 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

A post hoc analysis evaluated the effects of levomilnacipran ER on individual symptoms and symptom domains in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHODS

Data were pooled from 5 Phase III trials comprising 2598 patients. Effects on depression symptoms were analyzed based on change from baseline in individual Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) item scores. A1dditional evaluations included resolution of individual symptoms (defined as a MADRS item score ≤1 at end of treatment) and concurrent resolution of all 10 MADRS items, all MADRS6 subscale items, and all items included in different symptom clusters (Dysphoria, Retardation, Vegetative Symptoms, Anhedonia).

RESULTS

Significantly greater mean improvements were found on all MADRS items except Reduced Appetite with levomilnacipran ER treatment compared with placebo. Resolution of individual symptoms occurred more frequently with levomilnacipran ER than placebo for each MADRS item (all P<.05), with odds ratios (ORs) ranging from 1.26 to 1.75; resolution of all 10 items was also greater with levomilnacipran ER (OR=1.57; P=.0051). Significant results were found for the MADRS6 subscale (OR=1.73; P<.0001) and each symptom cluster (OR range, 1.39 [Vegetative Symptoms] to 1.84 [Retardation]; all clusters, P<.01).

CONCLUSION

Adult MDD patients treated with levomilnacipran ER improved across a range of depression symptoms and symptom domains.

Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) 2016 Clinical Guidelines for the Management of Adults with Major Depressive Disorder: Section 3. Pharmacological Treatments

BACKGROUND

The Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) conducted a revision of the 2009 guidelines by updating the evidence and recommendations. The scope of the 2016 guidelines remains the management of major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults, with a target audience of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals.

METHODS

Using the question-answer format, we conducted a systematic literature search focusing on systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Evidence was graded using CANMAT-defined criteria for level of evidence. Recommendations for lines of treatment were based on the quality of evidence and clinical expert consensus. "Pharmacological Treatments" is the third of six sections of the 2016 guidelines. With little new information on older medications, treatment recommendations focus on second-generation antidepressants.

RESULTS

Evidence-informed responses are given for 21 questions under 4 broad categories: 1) principles of pharmacological management, including individualized assessment of patient and medication factors for antidepressant selection, regular and frequent monitoring, and assessing clinical and functional outcomes with measurement-based care; 2) comparative aspects of antidepressant medications based on efficacy, tolerability, and safety, including summaries of newly approved drugs since 2009; 3) practical approaches to pharmacological management, including drug-drug interactions and maintenance recommendations; and 4) managing inadequate response and treatment resistance, with a focus on switching antidepressants, applying adjunctive treatments, and new and emerging agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence-based pharmacological treatments are available for first-line treatment of MDD and for management of inadequate response. However, given the limitations of the evidence base, pharmacological management of MDD still depends on tailoring treatments to the patient.

The effects of levomilnacipran ER in adult patients with first-episode, highly recurrent, or chronic MDD

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorder (MDD) can be challenging to manage due its variable and episodic nature. Post hoc analyses were conducted on five studies (NCT00969709, NCT01377194, NCT00969150, NCT01034462, EudraCT:2006-002404-34) to evaluate the efficacy of levomilnacipran extended-release (ER) in patients with different MDD episode histories.

METHODS

Adults with MDD were randomized to double-blind treatment with levomilnacipran ER (40-120mg/d) or placebo. Three subgroups were identified: first-episode (n=494); highly recurrent (≥3 major depressive episodes; n=1954); and chronic (current episode duration ≥2 years; n=218). Mean changes from baseline to end of study (Week 8 [US studies], Week 10 [non-US study]) in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD17), and Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) total scores were analyzed in each subgroup. MADRS response, defined as ≥50% total score improvement from baseline to Week 8/10, was also analyzed.

RESULTS

Least squares mean differences (LSMDs) between treatment groups indicated significantly greater improvements with levomilnacipran ER versus placebo in MADRS (first-episode, -2.5; highly recurrent, -3.0; chronic, -4.9; all P<.05) and HAMD17 (first-episode, -2.1; highly recurrent, -1.6; chronic, -2.6; all P<.05) total scores. LSMDs for SDS total score were statistically significant in the first-episode and highly recurrent MDD subgroups (both subgroups, -2.3; P<.01). MADRS response rate was significantly higher with levomilnacipran ER versus placebo in all three subgroups (first-episode, 44.5% versus 35.0%; highly recurrent, 44.3% versus 33.5%; 36.8% versus 22.0%; all P<.05).

LIMITATIONS

MDD subgroups were defined post hoc; none of the studies were prospectively designed to evaluate outcomes in these subgroups. Other limitations include lack of active comparators and variability of dose/duration due to data being pooled from multiple clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that levomilnacipran ER improves depression symptoms and functional impairment in adult patients with different histories of MDD episodes.

Effects of levomilnacipran ER on fatigue symptoms associated with major depressive disorder

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of levomilnacipran extended-release (ER) on depression-related fatigue in adults with major depressive disorder. Post-hoc analyses of five phase III trials were carried out, with evaluation of fatigue symptoms based on score changes in four items: Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) item 7 (lassitude), and 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD17) items 7 (work/activities), 8 (retardation), and 13 (somatic symptoms). Symptom remission was analyzed on the basis of score shifts from baseline to end of treatment: MADRS item 7 and HAMD17 item 7 (from ≥2 to ≤1); HAMD17 items 8 and 13 (from ≥1 to 0). The mean change in MADRS total score was analyzed in patients with low and high fatigue (MADRS item 7 baseline score <4 and ≥4, respectively). Patients receiving levomilnacipran ER had significantly greater mean improvements and symptom remission (no/minimal residual fatigue) on all fatigue-related items: lassitude (35 vs. 28%), work/activities (43 vs. 35%), retardation (46 vs. 39%), somatic symptoms (26 vs. 18%; all Ps<0.01 versus placebo). The mean change in MADRS total score was significantly greater with levomilnacipran ER versus placebo in both low (least squares mean difference=-2.8, P=0.0018) and high (least squares mean difference=-3.1, P<0.0001) fatigue subgroups. Levomilnacipran ER treatment was effective in reducing depression-related fatigue in adult patients with major depressive disorder and was associated with remission of fatigue symptoms.

Levomilnacipran for the treatment of major depressive disorder: a review

Levomilnacipran (LVM, Fetzima(®)) was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of major depressive disorder. It is a unique dual neurotransmitter reuptake inhibitor. In contrast with other selective serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, including duloxetine, venlafaxine, and desvenlafaxine, it has greater selectivity for inhibiting norepinephrine reuptake than serotonin reuptake. Our review focuses on the efficacy, safety, and tolerability data for five double-blind, placebo-controlled, short-term studies and two long-term studies. In the short-term studies, LVM was found to be more effective than placebo in reducing depression (Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale) scores as well as improving functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) scores. Long-term studies found LVM to be similarly effective but in the only placebo-controlled long-term study, LVM was not significantly superior to placebo. LVM is fairly well tolerated, with the most common adverse events being nausea, headache, dry mouth, hyperhidrosis, and constipation. Discontinuation rates were mildly increased in those being treated with LVM (9%) versus placebo (3%). Adverse events were not dose-related except for urinary hesitancy and erectile dysfunction. LVM was weight neutral, was not toxic to the liver, and did not cause clinically significant QTc prolongation. Consistent with being a predominant potentiator of norepinephrine, pulse and blood pressure were significantly elevated by LVM but rarely induced tachycardia or hypertension. LVM is a relatively safe alternative antidepressant treatment with minimal drug-drug interactions. It is the only antidepressant that has in its labeling that it is not only effective in improving depression but also effective in improving impaired functioning. Whether this important effect on functioning is unique to LVM must be researched. In addition, whether LVM might be effective in norepinephrine-deficit depression, refractory depression, atypical depression, or seasonal depression is yet to be evaluated. Ultimately, head-to-head studies comparing LVM with other antidepressants will determine the place of LM in antidepressant treatment.