A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of flexible doses of levomilnacipran ER (40-120 mg/day) in patients with major depressive disorder
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: Levomilnacipran ER is a potent and selective serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) approved for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). Efficacy and safety have been evaluated in five Phase II/III studies, four of which met the pre-specified primary efficacy outcome. Results of the negative trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00969150) are reported here. METHODS: A Phase III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial comparing flexible-dose levomilnacipran ER 40-120 mg/day with placebo was conducted in outpatients with MDD. Patients met the DSM-IV-TR criteria for MDD, had a current episode of depression of at least 4 weeks' duration, and a Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score ≥30. The study comprised a 1-week, single-blind, placebo lead-in, 8-week double-blind treatment, and a 2-week down-taper. The primary and secondary efficacy measures were change from baseline to Week 8 in MADRS and Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) total scores, respectively, analyzed using a mixed-effects model for repeated measures approach. Safety outcomes included adverse events (AEs), laboratory and vital sign measures, the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale, and the Arizona Sexual Experiences Scale (ASEX). RESULTS: Three hundred and fifty-five patients received the study drug and had ≥1 post-baseline MADRS total score assessment (ITT Population); 81.9% of placebo and 77.1% of levomilnacipran ER patients completed the study. For levomilnacipran ER vs placebo, MADRS (-15.7 vs -14.2) and SDS (-8.8 vs -8.2) total score improvements, and rates of MADRS response (38.5% vs 34.8%) and remission (25.3% vs 23.8%) were numerically greater but differences were not statistically significant. Levomilnacipran ER was generally well tolerated. More levomilnacipran ER patients vs placebo reported AEs; the most common AEs for levomilnacipran ER were nausea (17%) and headache (16%). Mean changes in most safety measures were small and similar between groups. There were no meaningful differences in total ASEX scores between groups. LIMITATIONS: Short duration of treatment, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and lack of an active comparator. CONCLUSION: Numerical improvements for levomilnacipran ER vs placebo were detected in this study, but the differences were not statistically significant; levomilnacipran ER was generally well tolerated.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
One study had numerically greater improvement with levomilnacipran ER versus placebo.
“while one study had numerically greater improvement with levomilnacipran ER versus placebo (Gommoll et al., 2014).”
From Relapse prevention with levomilnacipran ER in adults with major depressive disorder: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (2019) · cites this paper as Gommoll et al., 2014
The overall safety profile of levomilnacipran ER was consistent with the completed acute and long-term levomilnacipran ER studies.
“The overall safety profile of levomilnacipran ER was consistent with the completed acute (Asnis et al., 2013; Bakish et al., 2014; Gommoll et al., 2014; Montgomery et al., 2013; Sambunaris et al., 2014) and long‐term (Mago et al., 2013) levomilnacipran ER studies”
From Relapse prevention with levomilnacipran ER in adults with major depressive disorder: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (2019) · cites this paper as Gommoll et al., 2014
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 43 · Cited by 43
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [33]Hooper M, Amsterdam J. Do clinical trials reflect drug potential? A review of FDA evaluation of new antidepressants. Poster Presented at the 39th Annual Meeting New Clinical Drug Evaluation Unit June 1–4; Boca Raton, FL, 1999
- Authors
- Gommoll, C. P., Greenberg, W. M., & Chen, C.
- Affiliations
- Forest Laboratories (United States) (US)
- Corresponding author
- Gommoll, Carl P.
- Venue
- Journal of Drug Assessment
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2014-01-16
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 10-19
- ISSN
- 1369-9474 (ISSN-L)
- 2155-6660
- PMC
- PMC4937636
- OpenAlex
- W1919874151
- Cited by
- 43
- References
- 43
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 5
- FWCI
- 6.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Journal of Drug Assessment (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
- Keywords
- major depressive disorder, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, flexible dosing, antidepressant efficacy, antidepressant safety, adverse events, sexual dysfunction, suicidal ideation, disability, outpatients, negative trials, remission, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Sheehan Disability Scale, norepinephrine
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review