A randomised, double-blind comparison of milnacipran and imipramine in the treatment of depression. Antidepressant efficacy and tolerability of milnacipran, a dual serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor: a comparison with fluvoxamine. A comparative study of milnacipran and imipramine in the treatment of major depressive disorder. Controlled comparison of two doses of milnacipran (F 2207) and amitriptyline in major depressive inpatients. Controlled comparison of milnacipran and fluoxetine in major depression. Double-blind study of the efficacy and safety of milnacipran and imipramine in elderly patients with major depressive episode. Interest of a loading dose of milnacipran in endogenous depressive inpatients. Comparison with the standard regimen and with fluvoxamine. Comparison of the tolerability and efficacy of citalopram and amitriptyline in elderly depressed patients treated in general practice. Long-term efficacy and safety of milnacipran compared to clomipramine in patients with major depression. A double-blind comparison of the efficacy and safety of milnacipran and fluoxetine in depressed inpatients.
This multicentre, double-blind, randomised trial in 109 patients compared the efficacy and tolerance of the novel selective serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) antidepressant milnacipran (50 mg twice daily, n=53) with the established tricyclic agent imipramine (75 mg twice daily, n=56) over a period of 6 weeks, in patients with major depression (Montgomery-Asberg depression rating score (MADRS) > or =25). Initiation of antidepressant medication was conducted during a 2-week period of hospitalisation, after a 3- to 7-day washout period. Concomitant psychiatric medication was limited to lorazepam, cyamemazine, chloral hydrate and long-term uncomplicated lithium therapy. Assessment for efficacy using the MADRS and Hamilton rating scales of depression, a visual analogue scale and global evaluation revealed both agents to be highly effective (P=0.0001) in this group of patients. Milnacipran was found to be of similar efficacy to imipramine. Tolerance, assessed by physiological and biochemical examinations with routine inventory and spontaneous report of adverse events, revealed a clear advantage for milnacipran. The incidence of anticholinergic events with milnacipran was about half that with imipramine and the overall incidence of adverse events by either reporting method was markedly lower with milnacipran than with imipramine. Furthermore, the patient drop-out rate with imipramine was double that experienced with milnacipran. Milnacipran appears to possess equal antidepressant efficacy to imipramine but with markedly superior tolerance. Therefore, milnacipran constitutes an important new treatment option in major depression. The antidepressant efficacy and tolerability of milnacipran, a dual action serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor, were compared with those of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, fluvoxamine, in 113 patients with moderate to severe major depression. Treatment with milnacipran, 50 mg b.d. for 6 weeks, produced a significantly greater reduction in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) scores than fluvoxamine, 100 mg b.d. (P = 0.007; 65.4% versus 49.9%, respectively); significantly greater decreases were also seen on days 7 (P = 0.04) and 28 (P = 0.03). The response rate (the proportion of patients showing a decrease in MADRS scores of at least 50%) was 78.9% in patients receiving milnacipran, compared with 60.7% in fluvoxamine-treated patients (P = 0.04). Milnacipran also produced greater improvements in 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores (P = 0.05). On the Clinical Global Impression Improvement scale, 77.2% of milnacipran-treated patients were rated as considerably or markedly improved, compared with 60.7% of patients receiving fluvoxamine (P = 0.06 chi-squared). Both treatments were well tolerated; the only significant difference between the two groups was a higher incidence of tremor and drowsiness in patients treated with fluvoxamine. It is concluded that milnacipran may offer some advantages over selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, such as fluvoxamine, in the treatment of moderate to severe major depression. The antidepressant efficacy and safety of milnacipran, a dual action antidepressant drug which inhibits the reuptake of serotonin and noradrenaline, was compared with that of the tricyclic antidepressant, imipramine, in a multi-centre, double-blind, randomised, parallel group, comparative trial in 5 hospital centres in Spain. One hundred patients hospitalised with a diagnosis of major depressive disorder according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatry Association (third revision), with a minimum score of 25 on the Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale were treated for 6 weeks with milnacipran (100 mg/day) or imipramine (150 mg/day). Both treatments showed similar efficacy in reducing depressive symptoms. The frequency of most adverse events in the milnacipran-treated patients was lower than that observed in the imipramine group, particularly those related to anticholinergic symptoms. Dysuria and shivering, however, were more common with milnacipran. The results of this study support others which have demonstrated that milnacipran has equivalent efficacy but superior tolerability to a tricyclic antidepressant such as imipramine. A multicenter study compared the antidepressant efficacy and the tolerance of two doses of milnacipran (50 mg and 100 mg/day) and amitriptyline (150 mg/day) in three parallel groups of 45 major depressive inpatients defined by Research Diagnostic Criteria. After a wash-out period of 4-7 days on placebo with lorazepam and/or nitrazepam if necessary, patients were randomly assigned to a daily dose of milnacipran 50 mg, milnacipran 100 mg or amitriptyline 150 mg reached on the 5th day and then stable over a 4-week period, with weekly assessments by means of the Montgomery and Asberg depression scale, the Hamilton depression scale, the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) and the Target Emergent Signs and Symptoms. Results showed significant superiority of both milnacipran 100 mg/day and amitriptyline over milnacipran 50 mg/day at the end of the treatment period. However, amitriptyline induced a nonsignificant trend toward more rapid improvement after 2 weeks of treatment, mainly based on items related to insomnia, supporting more sedative properties of amitriptyline as compared to milnacipran. Anticholinergic side-effects were significantly lower with milnacipran than with amitriptyline, explaining why milnacipran 100 mg exhibited at the end of the treatment period, a nonsignificantly better efficacy index on the CGI. Moreover, in contrast to milnacipran, amitriptyline was responsible for a significant decrease in blood pressure and a significant weight gain. The efficacy and the tolerance of milnacipran (100 mg/day), a second generation antidepressant which equipotently inhibits both noradrenaline and serotonin reuptake, was compared to fluoxetine (20 mg/day), a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, in two parallel groups of, respectively, 97 and 93 major depressive outpatients. The duration of the study was 6 weeks, with assessments every 2 weeks by means of the Montgomery and Asberg depression scale (MADRS), the Hamilton depression scale, the clinical global impressions (CGI), and a checklist of symptoms and side-effects. Results showed significant superiority of fluoxetine over milnacipran on most rating instruments: MADRS (P = 0.01) including five individual items, Hamilton depression scale (P = 0.002) including ten individual items, CGI of severity (P = 0.01) and therapeutical index (P = 0.002). On visual analogue scales assessing the clinical profile of the compounds, fluoxetine was rated as exhibiting more psychostimulating activity than milnacipran (P = 0.0008). The tolerance of the two antidepressants was very similar, with the exception of symptoms of dizziness which were more frequently reported with milnacipran (P = 0.01). These differences in efficacy favoring fluoxetine could result from the selection of a dose of milnacipran below the optimal therapeutic dose for this type of psychiatric patients or to the administration of the compounds in single daily intakes, whereas milnacipran possesses a plasma elimination half-life of only 7 h. The novel antidepressant agent milnacipran is a dual and equipotent serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor. The aim of this double-blind study was to compare the efficacy and safety of milnacipran (50 mg twice daily) with that of imipramine (50 mg twice daily) in elderly patients with major depressive episode. A total of 219 patients were randomly assigned to 8 weeks of double-blind treatment with either milnacipran or imipramine; 72 patients withdrew from the study. At the end of treatment no significant differences were found between milnacipran and imipramine in antidepressant efficacy. A significantly greater number of side-effects, particularly anticholinergic effects, was observed in the imipramine group. Milnacipran may be preferable to imipramine in elderly depressed patients, as it provides the same antidepressant activity as imipramine with a lower incidence of side-effects, and does not impair cognitive ability. A multicenter controlled study was designed to test the hypothesis that a loading dose of an antidepressant could shorten the latency of its clinical efficacy. Three parallel groups of about 40 endogenous depressive inpatients received either a loading dose of milnacipran (300 mg daily for 2 weeks and 150 mg daily during the 2 following weeks), the standard regimen of milnacipran in severe depression (200 mg daily for 4 weeks), or fluvoxamine (200 mg daily for 4 weeks). The duration of the study was 4 weeks, with assessments at baseline and after 4, 9, 14, 21, and 28 days of therapy by means of Montgomery and Asberg depression scale (MADS), the Hamilton depression scale, the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI), and a checklist of symptoms and side-effects. Results showed very similar evolution in the 3 treatment groups. In addition, the level of side-effects did not exhibit significant differences among the treatment groups, except for excitement-nervousness and akathisia which were more frequently reported with fluvoxamine. These results do not support the usefulness of a loading dose of an antidepressant such as milnacipran. They demonstrate however that milnacipran can be given at a 300 mg daily dose from the very first day of treatment with an excellent tolerance. The enhanced sensitivity of the elderly to the side effects produced by tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), and the frequency and type of adverse events, have made the treatment of depression in this group difficult. The selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have been reported to produce significantly fewer undesirable side effects and display better tolerance than TCAs. We compared the therapeutic actions and side effects produced by citalopram, the most selective SSRI available, with amitriptyline in a group of elderly patients (aged 65 and older) diagnosed with major depression. In a double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, multicenter comparison of citalopram (20 or 40 mg/day) and amitriptyline (50 or 100 mg/day), patients who did not respond to placebo during a 1-week single-blind phase were randomly assigned to receive citalopram or amitriptyline for 8 weeks. Efficacy measures included the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD), and Clinical Global Impressions. Both drug treatments produced equivalent time-related declines in severity of depression, so that by 8 weeks slightly more than 50% of the patients in each group experienced marked recovery, defined as MADRS scores < or = 12. Amitriptyline produced a greater overall incidence of adverse events, including a significantly higher (P < 0.001) percentage of patients reporting dry mouth (34% vs. 7%), as well as a significantly higher (P < 0.02) incidence of somnolence. Constipation and fatigue also occurred more frequently in the amitriptyline than in the citalopram group. For only one event (nausea) did the citalopram group report a significantly greater (P = 0.012) incidence (12.8% vs. 4.8%). On the basis of these results, it was concluded that citalopram is as effective an antidepressant as amitriptyline in the treatment of the depressed elderly. Because of its low incidence and low magnitude of side effects, citalopram seems especially useful in private practice. Milnacipran is a new antidepressive drug, a combined noradrenaline/serotonin (NA/5-HT) reuptake inhibitor, which has been suggested to be as effective as and better tolerated than tricyclic antidepressants. Since long-term studies are lacking, we compared the efficacy, safety and tolerability of milnacipran and clomipramine in a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study setting during 26 weeks of treatment in patients with major depression. A total of 107 patients were treated with either milnacipran (n=52) or clomipramine (n=55). Due to active treatment of duration less than 12 days in four patients and protocol deviation in one patient, in total 47 milnacipran-treated patients were eligible for efficacy analysis. Nine patients in the clomipramine group continued on active treatment for less than 12 days. Thus 46 clomipramine-treated patients were finally included in the efficacy analysis. After 1 week of dose escalation, there was a fixed dosage regimen of either milnacipran (200 mg daily) or clomipramine (150 mg daily) during weeks 2 to 10, followed by flexible dosing of milnacipran (100, 150 or 200 mg daily) or clomipramine (75, 100 or 150 mg daily) during weeks 11 to 26. A total of 53 patients (49%) completed the 26-week study period; 21% (11/52) of the patients in the milnacipran group and 38% (21/55) of the patients in the clomipramine group discontinued their medication prematurely due to adverse events, whereas 19% (10/52) of those on milnacipran and 7% (4/55) of those on clomipramine treatment withdrew due to either lack of efficacy or clinical deterioration. The mean change (+/-SD) in the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) score between the baseline and the last rating ranged from 23.7+/-3.1 to 12.0+/-9.5 in the milnacipran-treated patients and from 23.1+/-3.5 to 8.0+/-8.5 in the clomipramine-treated patients, revealing a significant difference in favour of clomipramine. In total 58% of the milnacipran-treated patients vs. 72% of the clomipramine-treated patients showed a > or = 50% reduction in their baseline HAMD scores and 45% vs. 63% had an HAMD score of < or = 7 at the last rating, respectively. Moreover, the time to the onset of the antidepressant action (defined as > or = 50% reduction of the baseline HAMD score) showed a significant difference in favour of clomipramine. In addition, clomipramine was significantly more efficacious in patients with a baseline HAMD score of > or = 24 as evidenced by the analysis of the HAMD score at week 6 and at the last rating. The Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale did not show significant differences between the treatment groups. The safety analysis did not reveal any differences of clinical significance in cardiovascular variables between the study drugs. Dry mouth was significantly less frequently reported by the milnacipran-treated patients during the early and later phases (weeks 6 to 26) of the study, while insomnia was more common in the milnacipran group during weeks 1 to 6. In conclusion, milnacipran appeared to be less effective than clomipramine in the long-term treatment of depression. The side-effects of the drugs differed to a certain extent, and milnacipran tended to be somewhat better tolerated than clomipramine. This double-blind, randomised, multicentre study compared the antidepressant efficacy and safety of two doses of milnacipran (100 mg/day and 200 mg/day) and fluoxetine (20 mg/day) in 289 inpatients with endogenous depression. After a placebo washout period of 4-7 days, assessments were performed weekly during the first 4 weeks, and then after 6, 8 and 12 weeks, using the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and the Clinical Global Impression (CGI). HDRS total score was reduced by a mean of 14.8 in the milnacipran 100 mg/day group, 12.9 in the milnacipran 200 mg/day group and 12.1 in the fluoxetine 20 mg/day group. MADRS total score decreased by 17.4, 15.8 and 14.6, respectively. No significant difference could be shown between the three treatment groups for either the HDRS or MADRS total scores. However, the time-by-time change showed a trend in favour of milnacipran 100 mg/day, which was found significantly superior to fluoxetine at day 28 for several converging parameters (MADRS, CGI-3). Overall, efficacy ratings for all parameters were highest for milnacipran 100 mg/day, followed by milnacipran 200 mg/day and fluoxetine 20 mg/day. Side-effect profiles were not significantly different between groups except for a significantly greater frequency of dose-related increase in heart rate > or = 100 bpm in milnacipran recipients and a significantly greater weight loss in fluoxetine recipients.
Currently, there is inadequate evidence to conclude whether milnacipran is superior, inferior or the same as other antidepressive agents in terms of efficacy, acceptability and tolerability in the acute phase treatment of major depression. However, there is some evidence in favour of milnacipran over TCAs in terms of dropouts due to adverse events (acceptability) and the rates of experiencing adverse events (tolerability). Information about other clinically meaningful outcomes such as cost-effectiveness and social functioning, including the ability to return to work, is lacking. Further study is needed to answer whether milnacipran would be the better choice of antidepressant for acute major depression.