Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.

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.

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.

Background and Objective Venlafaxine hydrochloride extended-release (ER) capsules are commonly used to treat depression and anxiety disorders. Evaluation of the bioequivalence of generic formulations with reference products is essential to ensure therapeutic equivalence. The objective of this study was to evaluate the bioequivalence, safety, and tolerability of Chinese-manufactured venlafaxine hydrochloride extended-release capsules compared with USA-manufactured EFFEXOR ® XR in healthy Chinese volunteers under fed conditions. Methods A randomized, open-label, single-dose, crossover study was conducted. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive the test formulation (one 150-mg ER capsule manufactured in China) or the reference formulation (one 150-mg ER capsule manufactured in the USA). The bioequivalence of the two drugs was assessed using the area under the plasma concentration–time curve from time zero to the last sampling time (AUC 0– t ) and the maximum observed concentration ( C max ). Results A total of 28 subjects were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive a single dose of either the test or reference capsule. All the subjects completed the study and were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) and safety analyses. The mean AUC 0–t and C max of venlafaxine and its active metabolite O-desmethylvenlafaxine were comparable between the test and reference products with both parameters close to 100% and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals within the specified 80–125% bioequivalence boundary. Safety was also assessed between the two products and all adverse events (AEs) in this study were mild in severity. Conclusions Both the test and reference venlafaxine hydrochloride ER capsules were bioequivalent and showed a similar safety and tolerability profile in the population studied. Clinical Trials Registration This study was registered at the Drug Clinical Trial Registration and Information Publicity Platform ( http://www.chinadrugtrials.org.cn/index.html ) with registration number CTR20211243, date: June 1, 2021.

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.

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

Controversy exists over antidepressant use in bipolar II depression. To compare the safety and effectiveness of antidepressantv.mood stabiliser monotherapy for bipolar type II major depressive episodes. Randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, 12-week comparison of venlafaxine (n= 65)v.lithium (n= 64) monotherapy in adult out-patients (trial registration numberNCT00602537). Primary outcome - venlafaxine produced a greater response rate (67.7%)v lithium (34.4%,P<0.001). Secondary outcomes - venlafaxine produced a greater remission rate (58.5%v 28.1%,P<0.001); greater decline in depression symptom scores over time (β = -5.32, s.e. = 1.16, χ(2)= 21.19,P<0.001); greater reduction in global severity scores over time (β = -1.05, s.e. = 0.22, w(2)= 22.33,P<0.001); and greater improvement in global change scores (β = -1.31, s.e. = 0.32, χ(2)= 16.95,P<0.001) relative to lithium. No statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences in hypomanic symptoms were observed between treatments. These findings suggest that short-term venlafaxine monotherapy may provide effective antidepressant treatment for bipolar II depression without a statistically significant increase in hypomanic symptoms relative to lithium.

Serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) have been postulated to afford benefits in alleviating anhedonia and amotivation. This post hoc pooled analysis evaluated the effect of venlafaxine XR, an SNRI, on these symptoms in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). Data was pooled from five short-term randomized, placebo-controlled studies of venlafaxine XR for the treatment of MDD, comprising 1087 (venlafaxine XR, n = 585; placebo, n = 502) adult subjects. The change from baseline score in the MADRS anhedonia factor (based on items 1 [apparent sadness], 2 [reported sadness], 6 [concentration difficulties], 7 [lassitude], and 8 [inability to feel]) for anhedonia, and in motivational deficits (based on 3 items of HAM-D17: involvement in work and activities, psychomotor retardation, and energy level [ie, general somatic symptoms]) for amotivation, were measured through 8 weeks. Mixed model repeated measures (MMRMs) were used to analyze changes over time and ANCOVA to analyze the change from baseline at week 8 with LOCF employed to handle missing data. At the end of 8 weeks, the change from baseline was significantly greater in patients on venlafaxine XR in both anhedonia (mean, 95% CI: -2.73 [-3.63, -1.82],  < 0.0001) and amotivation scores (mean, 95% CI: -0.78 [-1.04, -0.52],  < 0.0001) than those on placebo. For both measures, the between-group separation from baseline was statistically significant starting from week 2 onwards, and it increased over time. This analysis demonstrates that venlafaxine XR is effective in improving symptoms of anhedonia and motivational deficits in patients with MDD.

Purpose Previous pilot data suggested that venlafaxine could prevent acute and chronic oxaliplatin-related neuropathy. The purpose of this randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded pilot study was to obtain additional data to support conducting a phase III trial to test the use of venlafaxine to prevent oxaliplatin neurotoxicity. Methods Fifty patients, scheduled to undergo oxaliplatin-based therapy (FOLFOX) for stages II–III (67 %) or stage IV (33 %) colon cancer, were randomized to receive venlafaxine extended release (37.5 mg) or placebo, twice daily, through their last dose of oxaliplatin and then titrated off. Neurotoxicity was evaluated via several patient- and physician-reported measures, including the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy 20 (EORTC QLQ-CIPN20) instrument. Results Baseline patient characteristics were equivalent for the two arms, with a median age of 60 years. There was a trend toward benefit for the venlafaxine arm, when evaluated by the oxaliplatin-specific neuropathy scale and by acute neuropathy measures of throat discomfort and discomfort swallowing cold liquids, the latter only for the first two oxaliplatin doses. These trends were outweighed by a lack of any such trends in all other measurements including the following: (1) the CIPN20 sensory subscale ( P  = 0.55, primary endpoint), physician-completed NCI CTCAE assessment, or cumulative administered oxaliplatin doses (median 716 vs 631 mg for placebo and venlafaxine, respectively, P  = 0.34). Conclusions The present study neither supports the use of venlafaxine for preventing oxaliplatin-induced neuropathy in clinical practice nor the initiation of a phase III trial to investigate venlafaxine in this setting.

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.