Explore the vast range of titles available.

About one-third of patients with depression fail to achieve remission despite treatment with multiple antidepressants and are considered to have treatment-resistant depression. This Phase 3, double-blind, multicenter study enrolled adults with moderate-to-severe depression and nonresponse to ≥2 antidepressants in the current depression episode. Eligible patients (N = 346) were randomized (1:1:1) to twice-weekly nasal spray treatment (esketamine [56 or 84 mg] or placebo) plus a newly initiated, open-label, oral antidepressant taken daily for 4 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to day 28 in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score, performed by blinded, remote raters. Based on the predefined statistical testing sequence, esketamine 84 mg/antidepressant had to be significant for esketamine 56 mg/antidepressant to be formally tested. Statistical significance was not achieved with esketamine 84 mg/antidepressant compared with antidepressant/placebo (least squares [LS] means difference [95% CI]: -3.2 [-6.88, 0.45]; 2-sided P value = .088). Although esketamine 56 mg/antidepressant could not be formally tested, the LS means difference was -4.1 [-7.67, -0.49] (nominal 2-sided P value = .027). The most common (>20%) adverse events reported for esketamine/antidepressant were nausea, dissociation, dizziness, vertigo, and headache. Statistical significance was not achieved for the primary endpoint; nevertheless, the treatment effect (Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale) for both esketamine/antidepressant groups exceeded what has been considered clinically meaningful for approved antidepressants vs placebo. Safety was similar between esketamine/antidepressant groups and no new dose-related safety concerns were identified. This study provides supportive evidence for the safety and efficacy of esketamine nasal spray as a new, rapid-acting antidepressant for patients with treatment-resistant depression. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02417064.

Although major depressive disorder (MDD) is associated with altered functional coupling between disparate neural networks, the degree to which such measures are ameliorated by antidepressant treatment is unclear. It is also unclear whether functional connectivity can be used as a predictive biomarker of treatment response. Here, we used whole-brain functional connectivity analysis to identify neural signatures of remission following antidepressant treatment, and to identify connectomic predictors of treatment response. 163 MDD and 62 healthy individuals underwent functional MRI during pre-treatment baseline and 8-week follow-up sessions. Patients were randomized to escitalopram, sertraline or venlafaxine-XR antidepressants and assessed at follow-up for remission. Baseline measures of intrinsic functional connectivity between each pair of 333 regions were analyzed to identify pre-treatment connectomic features that distinguish remitters from non-remitters. We then interrogated these connectomic differences to determine if they changed post-treatment, distinguished patients from controls, and were modulated by medication type. Irrespective of medication type, remitters were distinguished from non-remitters by greater connectivity within the default mode network (DMN); specifically, between the DMN, fronto-parietal and somatomotor networks, the DMN and visual, limbic, auditory and ventral attention networks, and between the fronto-parietal and somatomotor networks with cingulo-opercular and dorsal attention networks. This baseline hypo-connectivity for non-remitters also distinguished them from controls and increased following treatment. In contrast, connectivity for remitters was higher than controls at baseline and also following remission, suggesting a trait-like connectomic characteristic. Increased functional connectivity within and between large-scale intrinsic brain networks may characterize acute recovery with antidepressants in depression.

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

Background Current clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) offer contradictory recommendations regarding use of medications or psychotherapy as first‐line treatment. Direct head‐to‐head comparisons are lacking. Methods Systemic review of Medline, EMBASE, PILOTS, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, and Global Health Library was conducted without language restrictions. Randomized clinical trials ≥8 weeks in duration using structured clinical interview‐based outcome measures, active‐control conditions (e.g. supportive psychotherapy), and intent‐to‐treat analysis were selected for analyses. Independent review, data ion, and bias assessment were performed using standardized processes. Study outcomes were grouped around conventional follow‐up time periods (3, 6, and 9 months). Combined effect sizes were computed using meta‐analyses for medication versus control, medication pre‐/posttreatment, psychotherapy versus control, and psychotherapy pre‐/posttreatment. Results Effect sizes for trauma‐focused psychotherapies (TFPs) versus active control conditions were greater than medications versus placebo and other psychotherapies versus active controls. TFPs resulted in greater sustained benefit over time than medications. Sertraline, venlafaxine, and nefazodone outperformed other medications, although potential for methodological biases were high. Improvement following paroxetine and fluoxetine treatment was small. Venlafaxine and stress inoculation training (SIT) demonstrated large initial effects that decreased over time. Bupropion, citalopram, divalproex, mirtazapine, tiagabine, and topiramate failed to differentiate from placebo. Aripiprazole, divalproex, guanfacine, and olanzapine failed to differentiate from placebo when combined with an antidepressant. Conclusions Study findings support use of TFPs over nontrauma‐focused psychotherapy or medication as first‐line interventions. Second‐line interventions include SIT, and potentially sertraline or venlafaxine, rather than entire classes of medication, such as SSRIs. Future revisions of CPGs should prioritize studies that utilize active controls over waitlist or treatment‐as‐usual conditions. Direct head‐to‐head trials of TFPs versus sertraline or venlafaxine are needed.

ObjectiveOne of the complications of chemotherapy is peripheral neuropathy. Various studies have shown that potent norepinephrine and serotonin reuptake inhibitors such as gabapentin, venlafaxine and duloxetine have therapeutic effects on neuropathy. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of venlafaxine vs. duloxetine on chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy.MethodsIn this clinical trial, cancer patients who were suffering from chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy comprised the study population. They were randomly assigned to three pharmacotherapy groups including venlafaxine, duloxetine and placebo. Cranial, sensory, motor neuropathies as well as neuropathic pain were evaluated on day 1, week 2, and week 4 after enrollment.ResultsGrade of cranial, motor, sensory and neuropathic pain decreased significantly in venlafaxine and duloxetine groups. This reduction was more considerable in duloxetine group compared to venlafaxine group (P < 0.05).ConclusionDuloxetine seems to be more effective than venlafaxine in decreasing the symptoms of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. Duloxetine was more effective than venlafaxine in decreasing motor neuropathy and neuropathic pain grade.

Studies of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) have consistently reported reduced hippocampal volumes; however, the exact pattern of these volume changes in specific anatomical subfields and their functional significance is unclear. We sought to clarify the relationship between hippocampal tail volumes and (i) a diagnosis of MDD, and (ii) clinical remission to anti-depressant medications (ADMs). Outpatients with nonpsychotic MDD (n=202) based on DSM-IV criteria and a 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD17) score ⩾16 underwent pretreatment magnetic resonance imaging as part of the international Study to Predict Optimized Treatment for Depression (iSPOT-D). Gender-matched healthy controls (n=68) also underwent MRI scanning. An automated pipeline was used to objectively measure hippocampal subfield and whole brain volumes. Remission was defined as an HRSD17 of ⩽7 following 8 weeks of randomized open-label treatment ADMs: escitalopram, sertraline or venlafaxine-extended release. After controlling for age and total brain volume, hippocampal tail volume was larger in the MDD cohort compared to control subjects. Larger hippocampal tail volume was positively related to clinical remission, independent of total hippocampal volume, total brain volume and age. These data provide convergent evidence of the importance of the hippocampus in the development or treatment of MDD. Hippocampal tail volume is proposed as a potentially useful biomarker of sensitivity to ADM treatment.

Although the cost of poor treatment outcomes of depression is staggering, we do not yet have clinically useful methods for selecting the most effective antidepressant for each depressed person. Emotional brain activation is altered in major depressive disorder (MDD) and implicated in treatment response. Identifying which aspects of emotional brain activation are predictive of general and specific responses to antidepressants may help clinicians and patients when making treatment decisions. We examined whether amygdala activation probed by emotion stimuli is a general or differential predictor of response to three commonly prescribed antidepressants, using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). A test-retest design was used to assess patients with MDD in an academic setting as part of the International Study to Predict Optimized Treatment in Depression. A total of 80 MDD outpatients were scanned prior to treatment and 8 weeks after randomization to the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors escitalopram and sertraline and the serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, venlafaxine-extended release (XR). A total of 34 matched controls were scanned at the same timepoints. We quantified the blood oxygen level-dependent signal of the amygdala during subliminal and supraliminal viewing of facial expressions of emotion. Response to treatment was defined by ⩾50% symptom improvement on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Pre-treatment amygdala hypo-reactivity to subliminal happy and threat was a general predictor of treatment response, regardless of medication type (Cohen's d effect size 0.63 to 0.77; classification accuracy, 75%). Responders showed hypo-reactivity compared to controls at baseline, and an increase toward 'normalization' post-treatment. Pre-treatment amygdala reactivity to subliminal sadness was a differential moderator of non-response to venlafaxine-XR (Cohen's d effect size 1.5; classification accuracy, 81%). Non-responders to venlafaxine-XR showed pre-treatment hyper-reactivity, which progressed to hypo-reactivity rather than normalization post-treatment, and hypo-reactivity post-treatment was abnormal compared to controls. Impaired amygdala activation has not previously been highlighted in the general vs differential prediction of antidepressant outcomes. Amygdala hypo-reactivity to emotions signaling reward and threat predicts the general capacity to respond to antidepressants. Amygdala hyper-reactivity to sad emotion is involved in a specific non-response to a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor. The findings suggest amygdala probes may help inform the personal selection of antidepressant treatments.

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. 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. 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. 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. •Both venlafaxine and nortriptyline reduce the severity of headache attacks comparably.•Extending the intervention could optimize the efficacy of venlafaxine and nortriptyline in improving attack parameters.•Nortriptyline demonstrates a higher incidence of side effects in comparison to venlafaxine.•In similar conditions, venlafaxine may be preferred over nortriptyline for migraine prophylaxis.

Abstract Study Objectives The Menopause Strategies: Finding Lasting Answers for Symptoms and Health network conducted three randomized clinical trials (RCTs) testing six interventions treating vasomotor symptoms (VMS), and also collected self-reported sleep outcomes. A fourth RCT assessed an intervention for insomnia symptoms among women with VMS. We describe these seven interventions’ effects relative to control in women with comparably severe insomnia symptoms and VMS. Methods We analyzed pooled individual-level data from 546 peri- and postmenopausal women with Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) ≥ 12, and ≥14 bothersome VMS/week across the four RCTs. Interventions included the following: escitalopram 10–20 mg/day; yoga; aerobic exercise; 1.8 g/day omega-3 fatty acids; oral 17-beta-estradiol 0.5-mg/day; venlafaxine XR 75-mg/day; and cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I). Outcome measures were ISI and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) over 8–12 weeks of treatment. Results CBT-I produced the greatest reduction in ISI from baseline relative to control at −5.2 points (95% CI −7.0 to −3.4). Effects on ISI were similar for exercise at −2.1 and venlafaxine at −2.3 points. Comparably small decreases in ISI were observed with escitalopram, yoga, and estradiol. The largest reduction in PSQI from baseline was with CBT-I at −2.7 points (−3.9 to −1.5), although PSQI decreases of 1.2 to 1.6 points were significantly better than control with escitalopram, exercise, yoga, estradiol, and venlafaxine. Omega-3 supplements did not improve insomnia symptoms. Conclusions This study’s findings support current recommendations for CBT-I as a first line treatment in healthy midlife women with insomnia symptoms and moderately bothersome VMS.

Depression involves impairments in a range of cognitive and emotional capacities. It is unknown whether these functions can inform medication choice when considered as a composite predictive biomarker. We tested whether behavioral tests, grounded in the neurobiology of cognitive and emotional functions, predict outcome with common antidepressants. Medication-free outpatients with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder (N=1008; 665 completers) were assessed before treatment using 13 computerized tests of psychomotor, executive, memory-attention, processing speed, inhibitory, and emotional functions. Matched healthy controls (N=336) provided a normative reference sample for test performance. Depressed participants were then randomized to escitalopram, sertraline, or venlafaxine-extended release, and were assessed using the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS-SR16) and the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. Given the heterogeneity of depression, analyses were furthermore stratified by pretreatment performance. We then used pattern classification with cross-validation to determine individual patient-level composite predictive biomarkers of antidepressant outcome based on test performance. A subgroup of depressed participants (approximately one-quarter of patients) were found to be impaired across most cognitive tests relative to the healthy norm, from which they could be discriminated with 91% accuracy. These patients with generally impaired cognitive task performance had poorer treatment outcomes. For this impaired subgroup, task performance furthermore predicted remission on the QIDS-SR16 at 72% accuracy specifically following treatment with escitalopram but not the other medications. Therefore, tests of cognitive and emotional functions can form a clinically meaningful composite biomarker that may help drive general treatment outcome prediction for optimal treatment selection in depression, particularly for escitalopram.