Dataset Information

Vilazodone for the treatment of major depressive disorder: an evidence-based review of its place in therapy.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:It has clearly been demonstrated that depressive disorders constitute a major worldwide public health problem, with massive economic and quality-of-life consequences. Existing pharmacological treatments have limited efficacy, with only about a third of patients achieving remission on any one medication. Delayed onset of action and variable tolerability contribute to this limited efficacy. Vilazodone, introduced in the US in 2011, has been described as the first member of the serotonin partial agonist-reuptake inhibitor (SPARI) class of medications, combining serotonin-reuptake inhibition with 5-HT1A partial agonism. This agent could potentially have benefits for subgroups of depressed patients, including depressed patients with comorbid anxiety and patients with anxiety disorders, and might have fewer sexual side effects than selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). AIMS:We reviewed existing clinical trials that assess the benefits of vilazodone for treatment of major depression. EVIDENCE REVIEW:In clinical trials, including two Phase III studies and two Phase IV studies, vilazodone has been shown to have efficacy greater than placebo on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, comparable efficacy to citalopram, and continued benefit after 52 weeks of treatment. The safety profile for vilazodone is comparable to other SSRI medications, and tolerability also appears generally comparable to other SSRI medications. PLACE IN THERAPY:Vilazodone, which has been described as the first-of-class SPARI medication, may potentially have benefits for subgroups of patients, particularly those depressed individuals with coexisting anxiety symptoms or anxiety disorders. However, convincing evidence for these benefits has as yet not been published.

SUBMITTER: Hellerstein DJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4408952 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Vilazodone for the treatment of major depressive disorder: an evidence-based review of its place in therapy.

Hellerstein David J DJ Flaxer Joseph J

Core evidence 20150420

<h4>Introduction</h4>It has clearly been demonstrated that depressive disorders constitute a major worldwide public health problem, with massive economic and quality-of-life consequences. Existing pharmacological treatments have limited efficacy, with only about a third of patients achieving remission on any one medication. Delayed onset of action and variable tolerability contribute to this limited efficacy. Vilazodone, introduced in the US in 2011, has been described as the first member of the ...[more]

PMID: 25945081

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Depression is a leading cause of psychiatric morbidity in the modern world, and the introduction of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) is a revolution in the treatment of depression. Vilazodone, a novel SSRI and 5-HT1A partial agonist, received FDA approval in 2011 to treat the major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults. This study conducted in India aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vilazodone when compared to escitalopram or placebo in patients with MDD. Methods This was a prospective, multicentre, randomized, comparative study of 375 participants over eight weeks of treatment with either vilazodone (10-40mg/day) or escitalopram (10-40 mg/day) or placebo in adult patients with MDD. Primary efficacy was assessed using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-17); secondary efficacy was assessed using the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score and Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) score. Safety parameters included adverse events (AEs), clinical laboratory results, vital signs, electrocardiogram ( ECG), and Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS). Results Mean change in the HAM-D-17 total score from baseline to week 8 for vilazodone, escitalopram, and placebo-treated patients in intent-to-treat (ITT) population was: -18.9 (± 7.49), -17.8 (± 6.06), and -7.4 (± 6.32); in ITT population (with Last Observation Carried Forward( LOCF) imputation) was: -17.9 (± 7.71), -17.4 (± 6.19), and -6.4 (± 6.84), and in per-protocol (PP) population was: -19.1 (± 7.20), -17.8 (± 6.08), and -7.7 (± 6.29), respectively. The upper limit of 95% CI (0.56 (ITT); 0.90 (ITT with LOCF Imputation); 0.23 (PP)) of difference in HAM-D-17 between vilazodone 40mg and escitalopram 40mg, which is lower than the defined non-inferiority margin (3.56), proving non-inferiority. The difference between vilazodone 40mg, escitalopram 40mg, and the placebo was statistically significant (p<0.0001). No deaths or serious adverse events were reported in this study. Conclusion Vilazodone demonstrated comparable efficacy to escitalopram and superior efficacy over the placebo in the treatment of MDD.

Project description:Background: Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is a moderately heritable disorder with a high lifetime prevalence. At present, laboratory blood tests to support MDD diagnosis are not available. Methods: We used a classifier approach on blood gene expression profiles of a unique set of non-medicated subjects (MDD patients and controls) to select genes of which expression is predictive for disease status. To reveal blood gene expression changes related to MDD disease, we applied a powerful ex vivo stimulus to the blood, i.e. incubation with lipopolysaccharide (LPS; 10 ng/ml blood). Results: Based on LPS-stimulated blood gene expression using whole-genome microarrays in 42 subjects (primary cohort; 21 MDD patients (mean age 42.3 years), 21 healthy controls (mean age 41.9 years)), we identified a set of genes (CAPRIN1, CLEC4A, KRT23, MLC1, PLSCR1, PROK2, ZBTB16) that serves as a molecular signature of MDD. These findings were validated for the primary cohort using an independent quantitative PCR method (P = 0.007). The difference between depressive patients and controls was confirmed (P = 0.019) in a replication cohort of 13 patients with MDD (mean age 42.8 years) and 14 controls (mean age 45.6 years). The MDD-signature score comprised of expression levels of 7 genes could discriminate depressive patients from controls with sensitivity of 76.9% and specificity of 71.8%. Conclusions: We show for the first time that molecular analysis of stimulated blood cells can be used as an endophenotype for MDD diagnosis, which is a milestone in establishing biomarkers for neuropsychiatric disorders with moderate heritability in general. Our results may provide a new entry point for following and predicting treatment outcome, as well as prediction of severity and recurrence of MDD. In total, 33 MDD patients and 34 healthy controls were analyzed using basal gene expression in whole blood, and gene expression from whole blood that was stimulated with LPS for 5-6 h, using microarrays. Patients were arbitrarily selected from all patients to serve as primary cohort (nMDD = 21 (MDD01-MDD21); nControls = 21 (Con01-Con21)), or replication cohort (nMDD = 12 (MDD22-MDD35); nControls = 13 (Con22-Con37)) using microarrays. This submission does not include Samples CON21_LPS or CON30_LPS.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the benefits and harms of third-wave cognitive therapy versus mentalisation-based therapy in a small sample of depressed participants.SettingThe trial was conducted at an outpatient psychiatric clinic for non-psychotic patients in Roskilde, Denmark.Participants44 consecutive adult participants diagnosed with major depressive disorder.Interventions18 weeks of third-wave cognitive therapy (n=22) versus 18 weeks of mentalisation-based treatment (n=22).OutcomesThe primary outcome was the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HDRS) at end of treatment (18 weeks). Secondary outcomes were: remission (HDRS <8), Beck's Depression Inventory, Symptom Checklist 90 Revised and The WHO-Five Well-being Index 1999.ResultsThe trial inclusion lasted for about 2 years as planned but only 44 out of the planned 84 participants were randomised. Two mentalisation-based participants were lost to follow-up. The unadjusted analysis showed that third-wave participants compared with mentalisation-based participants did not differ significantly regarding the 18 weeks HDRS score (12.9 vs 17.0; mean difference -4.14; 95% CI -8.30 to 0.03; p=0.051). In the analysis adjusted for baseline HDRS score, the difference was favouring third-wave cognitive therapy (p=0.039). At 18 weeks, five of the third-wave participants (22.7%) were in remission versus none of the mentalisation-based participants (p=0.049). We recorded no suicide attempts or suicides during the intervention period in any of the 44 participants. No significant differences were found between the two intervention groups on the remaining secondary outcomes.ConclusionsThird-wave cognitive therapy may be more effective than mentalisation-based therapy for depressive symptoms measured on the HDRS. However, more randomised clinical trials are needed to assess the effects of third-wave cognitive therapy and mentalisation-based treatment for depression.Trial registration numberRegistered with Clinical Trials government identifier: NCT01070134.

Dataset Information

Vilazodone for the treatment of major depressive disorder: an evidence-based review of its place in therapy.

Publications

Vilazodone for the treatment of major depressive disorder: an evidence-based review of its place in therapy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets