Levomilnacipran ameliorates lipopolysaccharide-induced depression-like behaviors and suppressed the TLR4/Ras signaling pathway.

Levomilnacipran, a serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, has been reported to have anti-depressive effects. However, the detailed mechanisms underlying these effects are still unclear. This study aimed to investigate the antidepressant mechanisms of levomilnacipran to discover new perspectives on the treatment of depression in male rats. Intraperitoneal injection of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) was used to induce depressive behaviors in rats. Activation of microglia and apoptosis of neurons verified by immunofluorescence. Inflammatory related proteins and neurotrophic related proteins were verified by immunoblotting. The mRNA expression of apoptosis markers was verified by real-time quantitative PCR. Finally, electron microscopy analysis was used to observe the ultrastructural pathology of neuron. Here, we found that the anti-depression and anti-anxiety effects of levomilnacipran in the LPS-induced rat model of depression was resulted from the suppression of neuroinflammation and neuronal apoptosis within prefrontal cortex of rats. Furthermore, we found that levomilnacipran could decrease the number of microglia and suppress its activation in prefrontal cortex of rats. This effect may be mediated by suppressing the TLR4/NF-κB and Ras/p38 signaling pathways. In addition, levomilnacipran plays a neuroprotective role by increasing the expression of neurotrophic factors. Taken together, these results suggest that levomilnacipran exerts antidepressant effects by attenuating neuroinflammation to inhibit the damage in central nervous system and plays a neuroprotective role to improve depressive behaviors. These findings suggest that suppression of neuroinflammation in prefrontal cortex could ameliorate depressive behavioral disorder of rats induced by LPS, which provided a new perspective for the treatment of depression.

Cost-effectiveness of vortioxetine compared with levomilnacipran and vilazodone in patients with major depressive disorder switching from an initial antidepressant.

Introduction: Many patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) do not achieve remission with their first antidepressant (AD), resulting in a high burden due to treatment failure. Vortioxetine is a valid treatment option for patients with MDD only partially responding to their first AD. Characterization of vortioxetine's potential benefits versus other approved treatments is important. Areas covered: The cost-effectiveness of vortioxetine, including cognitive outcomes, was modeled in comparison with levomilnacipran and vilazodone for patients switched to these medications after inadequate responses to a first AD. Expert opinion: Vortioxetine was associated with incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains versus levomilnacipran (0.008) or vilazodone (0.009). Vortioxetine was dominant versus levomilnacipran and cost-effective versus vilazodone (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER],33,829 USD/QALY). In sensitivity analyses using residual cognitive dysfunction rates (vortioxetine, 49%; levomilnacipran, 58%, and vilazodone, 64%), incremental QALY gains for vortioxetine versus levomilnacipran (0.0085) or vilazodone (0.0109) were found. Vortioxetine remained dominant versus levomilnacipran and cost-effective versus vilazodone (ICER, 27,633 USD/QALY). ICER reduction was found with cognition outcomes inclusion. This model provides additional support for considering vortioxetine for patients requiring a switch of MDD treatments, although its conclusions are limited by the data available for inclusion. Additional research and real-world trials are needed to confirm the findings.

Cortical thickness increases with levomilnacipran treatment in a pilot randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial in late-life depression.

BACKGROUND: Late-life depression (LLD) is associated with significant medical comorbidity, cognitive impairment, and suboptimal treatment response compared to depression experienced earlier in life. Levomilnacipran (LVM) is a novel antidepressant the effects of which on neuroplasticity have not yet been investigated. We investigated the effect of LVM on cortical thickness in a pilot randomised placebo-controlled trial in LLD. METHODS: Twenty-nine adults (≥ 60 years) with major depression (48.3% female; mean age = 71.5 ± 5.8 years; mean education = 16.0 ± 1.7 years) were randomised to either LVM or placebo for 12 weeks. T1-weighted images were acquired at baseline and 12 weeks. Thirteen subjects (six LVM and seven placebo) completed the study. Group differences in cortical thickness change across the study period were evaluated, with age and total intracranial volume included as covariates. RESULTS: Dropout rates did not differ significantly between groups. The LVM group had significantly more side effects, but no serious adverse events were reported. Lower LVM dose (≤ 40 mg) was better tolerated than higher doses (80-120 mg). Additionally, the LVM group showed a larger increase in cortical thickness in the right postcentral gyrus (primary somatosensory), supramarginal gyrus (sensory association region), and lateral occipital cortex (visual cortex) compared to the placebo group and greater reductions in the left insula. CONCLUSIONS: LVM may be less tolerable by older adults with depression and the effects on cortical thickness across sensory and sensory association regions may be related to the experience of side effects. Larger studies are necessary to evaluate treatment efficacy, tolerability, and neural effects of LVM in LLD.

Levomilnacipran: More of the Same?

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this narrative review is to provide clinicians an in-depth analysis of the mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, toxicology, and efficacy of levomilnacipran. We propose that unlike selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), or even their precursor serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), levomilnacipran demonstrates a potentially unique ability to alleviate the fatigue symptom cluster of major depressive disorder (MDD). DATA SOURCES: A literature review was completed in PubMed using the MeSH term levomilnacipran. STUDY SELECTION: Inclusion criteria were English-language only, randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews published through March 2019. Analyses using product labels and anecdotal or uncontrolled reports of clinical applications were excluded. Only published data from short-term and long-term trials were analyzed. The search resulted in 73 articles. The evidence-based review comprises a total of 31 articles. DATA SYNTHESIS: The data analyzed suggest that levomilnacipran has evidence in the treatment of MDD. More specifically, data suggest that levomilnacipran may be unique among SSRI and SNRI antidepressants in its ability to improve the fatigue symptom cluster in MDD. CONCLUSIONS: Further investigations are warranted into levomilnacipran's potentially unique ability to alleviate the fatigue symptom cluster of MDD. Future head-to-head studies and studies that assess for clinically relevant improvements in fatigue are needed.

Relapse prevention with levomilnacipran ER in adults with major depressive disorder: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Levomilnacipran extended release (ER) is a serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor approved for major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults. This study was designed to evaluate relapse prevention with levomilnacipran ER in patients with MDD. METHODS: Patients (≥18 years) with MDD (N = 644) received 20 weeks of open-label treatment with levomilnacipran ER 40, 80, or 120 mg/d (8 weeks flexible dosing; 12 weeks fixed dosing). Patients with a Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score ≤12 from the end of week 8 to week 20 were randomized to 26 weeks of double-blind treatment with levomilnacipran ER (same dosage; n = 165) or placebo (n = 159). The primary efficacy endpoint was time to relapse, defined as insufficient therapeutic response (≥2-point increase from randomization in Clinical Global Impression of Severity score, risk of suicide, need for hospitalization due to worsening of depression, or need for alternative antidepressant treatment as determined by the investigator) or an MADRS total score ≥18 at 2 consecutive visits. RESULTS: In the double-blind intent-to-treat population, levomilnacipran ER-treated patients had a significantly longer time to relapse compared with placebo (hazard ratio = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.33-0.92; P = 0.0212). Crude relapse rates were 14.5% (levomilnacipran ER) and 24.5% (placebo). Double-blind treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were reported for 58.8% and 56.0% of levomilnacipran ER and placebo patients, respectively; 3.0% and 1.3% discontinued due to AEs, and 1.2% and 0.6% had serious AEs, respectively. CONCLUSION: Levomilnacipran ER (40-120 mg/d) was effective in preventing relapse in patients with MDD. Safety and tolerability results were consistent with levomilnacipran ER acute studies.

Measures of suicidality in phase 3 clinical trials of levomilnacipran ER in adults with major depressive disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of levomilnacipran extended-release (ER) on suicidal ideation and behavior in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: Post hoc analyses were conducted in patients from 4 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials and a long-term, open-label extension study of levomilnacipran ER (40-120 mg/d) in adults with MDD. Analyses included incidence of suicide-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs); incidence of Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) suicidal ideation (score=1-5) and behavior (score=6-10); percent of patients who shifted from no C-SSRS suicidal ideation/behavior at baseline to suicidal ideation during treatment (worsened from score=0 to score=1-5), or vice-versa (improved from score=1-5 to score=0). RESULTS: Suicide-related TEAEs occurred in<1% of patients in the levomilnacipran ER studies. The incidence of C-SSRS suicidal ideation was 22.2%, 23.9%, and 21.7% for placebo, short-term levomilnacipran ER, and long-term levomilnacipran ER, respectively; C-SSRS suicidal behavior was<1% in all of these groups. In the short-term studies, the percentage of patients with C-SSRS shifts were as follows: worsening from score=0 to score=1-5 (placebo, 8.6%; levomilnacipran ER, 11.0%); improvement from score=1-5 to score=0 (placebo, 24.0%; levomilnacipran ER, 27.7%). CONCLUSION: In adult MDD patients, the incidence of suicidal ideation and behavior was similar between placebo and short-term levomilnacipran ER as indicated by TEAE reports and C-SSRS scores. Worsening in C-SSRS scores was also similar between placebo and levomilnacipran ER. There was no indication of increased suicidality during longer courses of continued therapy. Together, these findings suggest that this medication is not associated with increased risks of suicidal ideation or behavior.