Vortioxetine is an approved antidepressant that has also demonstrated positive effects on anxiety symptoms in subjects with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). This post-hoc analysis evaluates the efficacy of vortioxetine in GAD subjects who are working and/or pursuing an education.

In study NCT00744627, 301 GAD subjects were randomized to vortioxetine 5 mg or placebo for 8 weeks. Efficacy measures included the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM–A) total score, response/remission, global functioning (Sheehan Disability Scale [SDS]), and quality of life (Short Form–36 Health Survey). In study NCT00788034, 687 GAD subjects were treated open-label with vortioxetine 5 or 10 mg for 20 weeks, after which subjects in remission were randomized to fixed-dose of vortioxetine (5 or 10 mg) or placebo for at least 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was time to relapse. Analyses were completed in subjects working and/or pursuing an education at study entry and the full analysis set.

In study NCT00744627, the effect of vortioxetine versus placebo on HAM–A total score was –4.3 (p=0.0005) in working subjects (60% of total), while the effect in the total population was –3.8 (p=0.0001). The effect was greatest in subjects in professional (–4.5, p=0.0130) and associate professional positions (–7.6, p=0.0086). Greater effects in terms of response, remission, and the SDS and SF–36 were also observed. In NCT00788034, working subjects (69% of total) randomized to placebo were significantly more likely to relapse than subjects treated with vortioxetine (hazard ratio=2.9; p<0.001), while the hazard ratio in the total population was 2.7 (p<0.0001).

The beneficial effects of vortioxetine on anxiety symptoms, functioning, and quality of life are greater in adults with GAD who are working and/or pursuing an education versus the full GAD study population.

Some antidepressants, such as trazodone or clomipramine, can be administered intravenously in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), with potential benefits compared to the standard oral treatment, but available data about their efficacy are limited. The present study was aimed to compare the effectiveness of trazodone and clomipramine (intravenous [i.v.] followed by oral administration).

Some 42 patients with a diagnosis of MDD according to the DSM–5 were selected and treated with i.v. trazodone or clomipramine according to clinical judgment. The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, and the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale were administered at baseline, after 2 weeks, and after 6 weeks, as well as after 1 week of intravenous antidepressant administration. Raters were blinded to type of treatment.

No significant differences were found between treatment groups in terms of effectiveness at endpoint. Borderline statistical significance was found in terms of number of responders in favor of trazodone. In addition, patients treated with trazodone reported fewer total side effects than those treated with clomipramine.

Both i.v. trazodone and clomipramine are rapid and effective options for improving depressive symptoms, although trazodone appears to be tolerated better. Further studies with larger samples and double-blind conditions are warranted to confirm our results.

Presence of negative mood (depressed mood) and anhedonia (lack of interest and pleasure) are considered core symptoms of depression, while absence of positive mood is not taken into account. It is therefore remarkable that the depression scales routinely used to assess changes during antidepressant treatment (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HDRS], Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS]) do not really take into account anhedonia. Several scales were developed to assess positive mood and hedonic tone, but they only partially cover the multidimensional concept. Therefore we developed a new 16-item questionnaire, the Leuven Affect and Pleasure Scale (LAPS), to assess negative affect, positive affect, and hedonic tone.

This first article on the LAPS questionnaire reports on the correlations between the different items, on the factor analysis, and on the differences found in 3 groups of subjects : healthy college students (N=138), depressed but still functioning college students (N=27), and severely depressed inpatients (N=38). These differences were calculated using univariate general linear models with Bonferroni post-hoc testing, and effect sizes were expressed in η2.

Negative and positive affect were only moderately correlated, and the 4 independent variables (cognitive functioning, overall functioning, meaningful life, and happiness) had stronger correlations with positive affect than with negative affect. The major difference in negative affect was between healthy college students and depressed college students, positive affect was different between the 3 groups, and the major difference for hedonic tone was between depressed college students and depressed inpatients. Affiliative positive affect and the affiliative hedonic function were well preserved, even in depressed inpatients.

This preliminary report suggests that the LAPS offers a comprehensive assessment of negative and positive affect, of hedonic tone, and of independent variables (cognitive functioning, overall functioning, meaningful life, and happiness). Clinically relevant differences in subscores were found in 3 groups of subjects with variable levels of depression (healthy subjects, mildly depressed subjects, and severely depressed inpatients).