Cited by 43Treatment of Major DepressionAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Treatment and Access

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of flexible doses of levomilnacipran ER (40-120 mg/day) in patients with major depressive disorder

Open access
Gommoll, Carl P., Greenberg, William M., Chen, Changzheng·2014·Journal of Drug Assessment

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3109/21556660.2014.884505

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

  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
Published
2014-01-16
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
10-19
ISSN
  • 1369-9474 (ISSN-L)
  • 2155-6660
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
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