Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled pilot study of the phosphodiesterase-3 inhibitor cilostazol as an adjunctive to antidepressants in patients with major depressive disorder.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Aims
Cilostazol (CLS) has shown antidepressant effect in cardiovascular patients, post-stroke depression, and animal models through its neurotrophic and antiinflammatory activities. Consequently, we aimed to investigate its safety and efficacy in patients with MDD by conducting double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled pilot study.Methods
80 participants with MDD (DSM-IV criteria) and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) score >20 were treated with CLS 50 mg or placebo twice daily plus escitalopram (ESC) 20 mg once daily for six weeks. Patients were evaluated by HDRS scores (weeks 0, 2, 4, and 6). Serum levels of CREB1, BDNF, 5-HT, TNF-α, NF- κB, and FAM19A5 were assessed pre- and post-treatment.Results
Co-administration of CLS had markedly decreased HDRS score at all-time points compared to the placebo group (p < 0.001). Early improvement, response, and remission rates after 6 weeks were significantly higher in the CLS group (90%, 90%, 80%, respectively) than in the placebo group (25%, 65%, 50% respectively) (p < 0.001). Moreover, the CLS group was superior to the placebo group in modulation of the measured neurotrophic and inflammatory biomarkers.Conclusion
CLS is safe and effective short-term adjunctive therapy in patients with MDD with no other comorbid conditions. Trial registration ID:NCT04069819.
SUBMITTER: Abdallah MS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8611782 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Thiazolidinediones have shown antidepressant effect in animal studies, as well as in some uncontrolled studies evaluating human subjects with concurrent major depressive disorder (MDD) and metabolic syndrome. Although these drugs are insulin sensitizers, they also have important anti-inflammatory, neuroprotective, and anti-excitotoxic properties. Thus, we hypothesized that they would show antidepressant effect in patients with MDD even if it was not accompanied by metabolic disturbances. In this double-blind placebo-controlled study, 40 patients with MDD (DSM-IV-TR) and Hamilton depression rating scale-17 (Ham-D) score ≥ 22 were randomized to citalopram plus pioglitazone (15 mg every 12 h) (n=20) or citalopram plus placebo (n=20) for 6 weeks. Patients were evaluated using Ham-D (weeks 0, 2, 4, 6). Repeated-measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) and analysis of covariance were used for comparison of scores between the two groups. Treatment response (≥ 50% reduction in Ham-D score), remission (Ham-D score ≤ 7), and early improvement (≥ 20% reduction in Ham-D score within the first 2 weeks) were compared between the two groups using Fisher's exact test. Pioglitazone showed superiority over placebo during the course of the trial (F(1, 38)=9.483, p=0.004). Patients in the pioglitazone group had significantly lower scores at all time points than the placebo group (P<0.01). Frequency of early improvement, response (week 6), and remission was significantly higher in the pioglitazone group (95%, 95%, 45%, respectively) than in the placebo (30%, 40%, 15% respectively) group (P<0.001, <0.001, 0.04, respectively). Frequency of side effects was similar between the two groups. Pioglitazone is a safe and effective adjunctive short-term treatment in patients with moderate-to-severe MDD even in the absence of metabolic syndrome and diabetes.
| S-EPMC3398722 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This 19-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized phase 2 study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of adjunctive cariprazine (0.1-0.3 and 1.0-2.0 mg/day) as an antidepressant treatment for adults with treatment-resistant major depressive disorder (MDD) (NCT00854100). The primary endpoint was change in the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score and the secondary was change in the Clinical Global Impression-Intensity score. Additional efficacy parameters were also assessed. A total of 231 patients were randomized. None of the predefined parameters reached significance for either cariprazine doses, but higher doses yielded numerically greater mean changes in MADRS and Clinical Global Impression-Intensity scores, and MADRS response and remission rates, compared with placebo. No differences were seen on any measures between cariprazine 0.1-0.3 mg/day and placebo. Cariprazine was relatively well tolerated, and common treatment-emergent adverse events (incidence ≥5% and twice the placebo group rate) in both dosage groups included headache, arthralgia, restlessness, fatigue, increased appetite, insomnia, dry mouth, and constipation. In conclusion, both cariprazine doses were relatively well tolerated; although differences were not statistically significant, patients treated with cariprazine 1.0-2.0 mg/day had greater mean decreases in measures of depression symptoms compared with placebo, which is consistent with another adjunctive cariprazine MDD study, and thus warrants further investigation.
| S-EPMC6166709 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Hyperprolactinaemia is a troublesome side-effect of treatment with antipsychotics.This double-blind, placebo-controlled study aimed at examining the effect of adjunctive treatment with 10?mg aripiprazole on prolactin levels and sexual side-effects in patients with schizophrenia symptomatically maintained on risperidone.Thirty patients taking risperidone were enrolled into the trial (CTRI/2012/11/003114). Aripiprazole was administered at a fixed daily dose of 10?mg/day for 8 weeks. Serum prolactin was measured at baseline and at 8 weeks. Hyperprolactinaemia-related problems, psychopathology and side-effects were evaluated every 2 weeks.Prolactin levels decreased by 58% in the aripiprazole group compared with an increase by 22% in the placebo group. Prolactin levels normalised in 46% of patients in the aripiprazole group (number needed to treat, NNT=2). Aripiprazole improved erectile dysfunction in five out of six patients. There were no significant differences in change in psychopathology or side-effects between groups.Adjunctive aripiprazole reduced prolactin levels in those treated with risperidone, with no effect on psychopathology and extrapyramidal symptoms. This is a potential treatment for hyperprolactinaemia observed during treatment with second-generation antipsychotics.None.© The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2015. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Non-Commercial, No Derivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) licence.
| S-EPMC4998932 | biostudies-other
Project description:Metformin (MET) has been reported to have antidepressant effects in animal models and in diabetic patients with depression, owing to its anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and neuroprotective activity. Accordingly, we proposed that MET would show antidepressant effects in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) without other comorbidities. In this double-blind placebo-controlled study, 80 adult outpatients with MDD (DSM-IV criteria) and a Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) score >18 were randomized to receive fluoxetine 20 mg once daily plus placebo (n = 40) or fluoxetine 20 mg once daily plus MET 1000 mg once daily for 12 weeks. Patients were assessed by HAM-D score (weeks 0, 4, 8, and 12). The serum levels of TNF-α, IL-1β, IL-6, IGF-1, MDA, CRP, BDNF, and serotonin were measured before and after therapy. Mixed-effects model repeated-measures analysis of covariance was used to compare the HAM-D scores and the biological markers between the two groups. After 4, 8 and 12 weeks, patients in the MET group showed a statistically significant decline in HAM-D score relative to the placebo group (least squares mean difference [LSMD] -2.347, p = 0.000, LSMD -3.369, p = 0.000, and LSMD -3.454, p = 0.000, respectively). Response and remission rates were significantly higher in the MET group (89% and 81%, respectively) than in the placebo group (59% and 46%, respectively). Moreover, the MET group was superior in conserving the measured biological markers compared with the placebo group. Our findings suggest MET as a promising, effective, and safe short-term adjunctive approach in nondiabetic MDD patients. Trial registration ID: NCT04088448.
| S-EPMC7851215 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMajor depressive disorder (MDD) is a leading cause of disability worldwide. The current treatments are ineffective in approximately one-third of patients, resulting in a large economic burden and reduced quality of life for a significant proportion of the global population. There is considerable evidence that increased inflammation may distinguish a sub-type of MDD, and there are no validated diagnostic tools or treatments for neuroinflammation in MDD patients. The current study aims to explore the potential role of low-dose naltrexone (LDN), a drug with purported anti-inflammatory properties in the central nervous system, as an adjunctive treatment in patients with MDD.Methods/designThis double-blind placebo-controlled hybrid parallel arm study enables the exploration of peripheral and central inflammatory markers with LDN as an approach to investigate inflammation as a pathophysiological contributor to MDD. Eligible participants with MDD (n = 48) will be stratified into the high and low inflammatory groups according to the levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) and then randomized to receive LDN or placebo for an initial 12 weeks, followed by a further 12 weeks during which all participants will receive LDN. The primary outcome measure will be the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) administered at baseline, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 8 weeks, 12 weeks, 14 weeks, 16 weeks, 20 weeks, and 24 weeks, to assess the effectiveness of the anti-depressant response. The secondary outcomes include the use of MRI techniques including quantitative magnetization transfer (qMT), echo-planar spectroscopic imaging (EPSI), and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) to help to elucidate the neurobiological mechanism of LDN, and the inflammatory mechanisms in action in MDD. Electroencephalography, blood samples, cognitive tasks, and additional questionnaires will also be used to determine if there is a specific profile of symptoms in individuals with inflammatory MDD. Healthy participants (n = 24) will be recruited for baseline outcome measures only, to enable comparison with patients with MDD.DiscussionThis trial contributes to the literature on inflammation in MDD, including the understanding of the pathophysiology and efficacy of anti-inflammatory treatments. The investigation of inflammatory mechanisms in MDD is an important first step in the development of biomarkers to classify patient sub-groups, increase the accuracy of diagnosis, and tailor the approach to patients in clinical practice. This study may provide evidence of the benefit of LDN for the groups in whom conventional anti-depressants are ineffective and lead the way for translation into clinical practice.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12622000881730 . Registered on 21 June 2022.
| S-EPMC9524133 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The objective of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of adjunctive lanicemine (NMDA channel blocker) in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) over 12 weeks. This phase IIb, randomized, parallel-arm, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted at 49 centers in four countries between December 2011 and August 2013 in 302 patients aged 18-70 years, meeting criteria for single episode or recurrent MDD and with a history of inadequate treatment response. Patients were required to be taking an allowed antidepressant for at least four weeks prior to screening. Patients were randomized equally to receive 15 double-blind intravenous infusions of adjunctive lanicemine 50?mg, lanicemine 100?mg, or saline over a 12-week course, in addition to ongoing antidepressant. The primary efficacy end point was change in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score from baseline to week 6. Secondary efficacy outcome variables included change in MADRS score from baseline to week 12, response and remission rates, and changes in Clinical Global Impression scale, Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomology Self-Report score, and Sheehan Disability Scale score. Of 302 randomized patients, 240 (79.5%) completed treatment. Although lanicemine was generally well tolerated, neither dose was superior to placebo in reducing depressive symptoms on the primary end point or any secondary measures. There was no significant difference between lanicemine and placebo treatment on any outcome measures related to MDD. Post hoc analyses were performed to explore the possible effects of trial design and patient characteristics in accounting for the contrasting results with a previously reported trial.
| S-EPMC5312066 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To investigate the efficacy, safety, and clinical benefit of a once-daily formulation of trazodone (Trazodone Contramid((c)) OAD) in the treatment of major depressive disorder. DESIGN/PARTICIPANTS:In this double-blind study, 412 patients with major depressive disorder (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition criteria) were randomized 1:1 to receive either Trazodone Contramid OAD (150 to 375mg) or placebo. Treatment was titrated over two weeks to each individual optimal dose. Patients then continued six weeks of treatment; further dose adjustments were allowed based on efficacy and tolerability. MEASUREMENTS:The primary end point was change in the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale total score from baseline to last study visit. Secondary end points included Hamilton Depression Rating Scale responders/remitters, change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Clinician and Patient Global Improvement Scales, and quality of sleep. RESULTS:From the end of titration to the end of the six-week treatment period, the mean maximum daily dose of the intent-to-treat population was 310mg for the active group and 355mg for the placebo group. There was a statistically significant difference between trazodone and placebo on the mean HAMD-17 score (-11.4 vs. -9.3, P=0.012). A significant difference was present as early as Week 1 and was maintained at all subsequent study visits. Many secondary end points supported these findings, including improvements in quality of sleep. The most frequent adverse events were the same for both the treatment and placebo groups: headache and somnolence. There were no serious adverse events that were considered related to treatment. There were no clinically significant electrocardiogram or laboratory abnormalities. CONCLUSIONS:The trazodone Contramid formulation was more effective than placebo in major depressive disorder and was well tolerated.
| S-EPMC2719441 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMultiple treatments for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) have demonstrated efficacy, but up to one-third of individuals with MDD do not achieve symptomatic remission despite various interventions. Existing augmentation or combination strategies can have substantial safety concerns that may limit their application.MethodThis study investigated the antidepressant efficacy of a flexible dose of the dopamine agonist pramipexole as an adjunct to standard antidepressant treatment in an 8-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in a tertiary-level depression center. We randomized 60 outpatients (aged 18 to 75 years) with treatment-resistant nonpsychotic MDD (diagnosed according to DSM-IV) to either pramipexole (n = 30) or placebo (n = 30). Treatment resistance was defined as continued depression (Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] score ≥ 18) despite treatment with at least 1 prior antidepressant in the current depressive episode. Patients were recruited between September 2005 and April 2008. The primary outcome measure was the MADRS score.ResultsThe analyses that used a mixed-effects linear regression model indicated a modest but statistically significant benefit for pramipexole (P = .038). The last-observation-carried-forward analyses indicated that 40% and 33% of patients randomized to augmentation with pramipexole achieved response (χ(2) = 1.2, P = .27) and remission (χ(2) = 0.74, P = .61), respectively, compared to 27% and 23% with placebo; however, those differences were not statistically significant. Augmentation with pramipexole was well-tolerated, with no serious adverse effects identified.ConclusionFor patients who have failed to respond to standard antidepressant therapies, pramipexole is a safe and potentially efficacious augmentation strategy.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00231959.
| S-EPMC10034846 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) and a serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) in the treatment of depression in Parkinson disease (PD).MethodsA total of 115 subjects with PD were enrolled at 20 sites. Subjects were randomized to receive an SSRI (paroxetine; n = 42), an SNRI (venlafaxine extended release [XR]; n = 34), or placebo (n = 39). Subjects met DSM-IV criteria for a depressive disorder, or operationally defined subsyndromal depression, and scored >12 on the first 17 items of the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D). Subjects were followed for 12 weeks (6-week dosage adjustment, 6-week maintenance). Maximum daily dosages were 40 mg for paroxetine and 225 mg for venlafaxine XR. The primary outcome measure was change in the HAM-D score from baseline to week 12.ResultsTreatment effects (relative to placebo), expressed as mean 12-week reductions in HAM-D score, were 6.2 points (97.5% confidence interval [CI] 2.2 to 10.3, p = 0.0007) in the paroxetine group and 4.2 points (97.5% CI 0.1 to 8.4, p = 0.02) in the venlafaxine XR group. No treatment effects were seen on motor function.ConclusionsBoth paroxetine and venlafaxine XR significantly improved depression in subjects with PD. Both medications were generally safe and well tolerated and did not worsen motor function.Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class I evidence that paroxetine and venlafaxine XR are effective in treating depression in patients with PD.
| S-EPMC3324323 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To determine whether switching within or between antidepressant therapy (ADT) classes prior to the use of adjunctive antipsychotic treatment is associated with different outcomes in major depressive disorder (MDD). This was a post hoc analysis of pooled data from 3 similar, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled registrational studies of aripiprazole adjunctive to ADT conducted between September 2004 and April 2008. The trials comprised the following 3 phases: a 7- to 28-day screening phase, an 8-week single-blind prospective treatment phase, and a 6-week double-blind, randomized phase. Patients were aged 18-65 years and met DSM-IV-TR criteria for MDD. Patients with an inadequate response to ADT during the screening phase entered the prospective treatment phase, during which they were switched to another ADT medication of either the same or a different class. Those patients with an inadequate response were then randomized to double-blind adjunctive aripiprazole or adjunctive placebo and followed for 6 weeks. Mean improvement in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score was significantly greater with adjunctive aripiprazole versus adjunctive placebo for both between-class (-9.2 vs -6.2, P < .001) and within-class (-9.8 vs -6.6, P < .001) switch groups. Relative risks for response were 1.6 (95% CI = 1.3-2.1) for those who switched between classes and 1.7 (95% CI = 1.2-2.2) for those who switched within class. Augmentation with aripiprazole, after either a between-class or within-class switch following initial ADT failure, is an effective option for patients with nonresponsive MDD. In contrast to current strategies employed in clinical practice, these results suggest that adjunctive aripiprazole is a logical strategy in patients unresponsive to ADT. ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT00105196, NCT00095758, NCT00095823.
| S-EPMC3622536 | biostudies-literature