Cited by 83Treatment of Major DepressionAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Treatment and Access

Efficacy and Safety of Levomilnacipran Sustained Release 40 mg, 80 mg, or 120 mg in Major Depressive Disorder: A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study

Open access
Asnis, Gregory M., Bose, Anjana, Gommoll, Carl P., Chen, Changzheng, Greenberg, William M.·2013·The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of fixed-dose levomilnacipran sustained release (SR) compared with placebo in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD); the study was conducted from September 2009-May 2011. METHOD: Outpatients met DSM-IV-TR criteria for MDD with an ongoing major depressive episode ≥ 8 weeks' duration. After a 1-week placebo lead-in, patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo (n = 179) or levomilnacipran SR 40 mg (n = 181), 80 mg (n = 181), or 120 mg (n = 183) once daily for 8 weeks of double-blind treatment, followed by a 2-week double-blind down-taper. The primary efficacy parameter was change from baseline on the clinician-rated Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. The prespecified secondary efficacy parameter was change from baseline in Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) total score. Additional efficacy measures included the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS(17)) and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) and -Improvement (CGI-I). Safety and tolerability were also evaluated. RESULTS: The least squares mean difference (LSMD) for change from baseline in MADRS total score was significantly superior to placebo for all dose groups: -3.23 (P = .0186), -3.99 (P = .0038), and -4.86 (P = .0005) for levomilnacipran SR 40, 80, and 120 mg, respectively. The LSMD was significantly different for levomilnacipran SR 80 mg and 120 mg versus placebo on the SDS (-2.51 and -2.57, respectively, P < .05 for both doses), HDRS(17) (-2.09 and -2.34, respectively, P < .05 for both doses), CGI-S (-0.43 [P < .01] and -0.35 [P < .05], respectively), and CGI-I (-0.34 and -0.32, respectively, P < .05 for both doses) assessments. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (≥ 10% of any treatment group) were headache, nausea, constipation, dry mouth, increased heart rate, and hyperhidrosis. CONCLUSIONS: Levomilnacipran SR demonstrated significant improvement in depressive symptoms and functioning relative to placebo. In this study, levomilnacipran SR was generally well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00969709.

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 · 10.4088/jcp.12m08197

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 24 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2000.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Asnis, G. M., Bose, A., Gommoll, C. P., Chen, C., & Greenberg, W. M.
Affiliations
Albert Einstein College of Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Asnis, Gregory M.
Venue
The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry
Published
2013-03-15
Volume
74
Issue
03
Pages
242-248
ISSN
0160-6689 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2061731424
Cited by
83
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 8
FWCI
11.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Bristol-Myers Squibb
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
levomilnacipran, major depressive disorder, sustained-release formulation, antidepressant efficacy, dose comparison, tolerability, disability, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Sheehan Disability Scale, clinical global impression, outpatients, fixed-dose dosing, norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, adverse events, discontinuation
MeSH terms
Milnacipran, Adult, Cyclopropanes, Delayed-Action Preparations, Major Depressive Disorder, Depressive Disorder, Major, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Stereoisomerism, Treatment Outcome, Drug Monitoring, Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

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