GSK372475 is a triple reuptake inhibitor with approximately equipotent inhibition of serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine transporters. Two randomized, placebo- and active-controlled, double-blind studies examined the efficacy and safety of GSK372475 in outpatients (aged 18–64 years) with a diagnosis of major depressive episode associated with major depressive disorder (MDD). Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo, GSK372475 (1–2 mg/d), or active control (Study 1: venlafaxine XR 150–225 mg/d; Study 2: paroxetine 20–30 mg/d). GSK372475 did not significantly differ from placebo on any of the key efficacy endpoints (six-item Bech scale, IDS-Clinician Rated, MADRS) in either study. Both active controls demonstrated significant antidepressant activity compared with placebo on both primary and secondary endpoints. The most common adverse effects (AEs) with GSK372475 were dry mouth, headache, insomnia, and nausea. AEs were more frequent for GSK372475 versus placebo for sleep, anxiety-related, gastrointestinal, and tachycardia events. Increases in mean change from baseline in heart rate and sitting blood pressure were greater for GSK372475 than observed for either placebo or active control groups. Completion rates were lower for GSK372475 (49%, 58%) compared with placebo (67%, 74%), venlafaxine XR (63%), or paroxetine (77%). GSK372475 was neither efficacious nor well tolerated in patients with MDD in two 10-week studies.

Bupropion, a noradrenaline/dopamine reuptake inhibitor, and venlafaxine, a serotonin/noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor, are both established antidepressants with proven efficacy in randomized controlled clinical trials. The objective of this double-blind, randomized, placebo-and active-controlled, eight-week, flexible-dose study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of the once-daily extended-release formulations of these two antidepressants compared with placebo. Patients with major depressive disorder were randomized to once-daily treatment with bupropion XR 150 mg (n = 204), the extended-release formulation of venlafaxine (venlafaxine XR) 75mg (n = 198) or placebo (n = 189) during weeks 1 to 4, with the option to double the dose at week 5 if response was inadequate. In this study, bupropion XR did not demonstrate statistically significant evidence of greater improvement from baseline compared with placebo on week 8 Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating scale scores (primary endpoint) or on secondary endpoints including CGI, HAM-A and responder and remitter analyses. Descriptive statistics for venlafaxine XR indicated separation versus placebo on MADRS total scores at week 8 and other intermediate time points, and on other endpoints including CGI, HAM-A and responder and remitter analyses. Both active treatments elicited improvement on the Sheehan Disability Scale and its subscales and were generally well tolerated at the doses studied. Rates of nausea, dry mouth, dizziness, hyperhidrosis, insomnia, constipation, tremor, anorexia and male sexual dysfunction were elevated in the venlafaxine XR group, consistent with its mixed serotonergic/noradrenergic mechanism. Rates of dry mouth, insomnia and hyperhidrosis were elevated in the bupropion XR group, consistent with its catecholaminergic mechanism.

Objective: To evaluate a computer-automated version of the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) using interactive voice response technology (eC-SSRS (TM)). The eC-SSRS assesses "Lifetime" ideations and behaviors at baseline and monitors suicidality prospectively thereafter. Ten control volunteers and ten psychiatric inpatients participated and were administered the C-SSRS at baseline and 4-8 days later by two experienced clinical trial raters. Study participants also completed the eC-SSRS using touch-tone telephones. Kappa measures of agreement compared inter-rater reliability of the C-SSRS administrations and the C-SSRS administrations with the eC-SSRS. Convergent validity with the Beck Scale for Suicide Ideation BSS and patient feedback forms were also evaluated. Twenty baseline and nineteen follow-up assessments were completed. In general, agreement between the eC-SSRS and each rater was comparable or superior to the agreement between both raters. Subject feedback and personal preferences varied across individuals, but were generally supportive of the feasibility and validity of the eC-SSRS. The reliability and validity of the C-SSRS and eC-SSRS for assessing suicidal ideation and behaviors were comparable in this first study comparing the methods. These data were obtained from relatively small patient samples recruited from a single investigational site over a relatively short follow-up period. They support the feasibility and validity of the eC-SSRS for prospective monitoring of suicidality for use in clinical trials or clinical care, but further research with larger samples, other patient populations, and longer follow-up periods is needed. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

OBJECTIVETo assess a possible relationship between treatment with bupropion (vs placebo) and expressed suicidal ideation and behavior.DATA SOURCESThis analysis, based on the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) analysis of antidepressant suicidality data, included 8,953 adult subjects receiving bupropion and 6,520 adult subjects receiving placebo from randomized, placebo-controlled trials with bupropion conducted between 1976 and 2006 across multiple indications, including major depressive disorder (MDD). A text string search of the adverse event database and case report form comments was performed to identify potential suicidal events. FDA search criteria included the following text strings: accident-, injur-, suic-, or overdos-, including all events coded as accidental overdose, attempt, cut, gas, hang, hung, jump, mutilat-, self damag-, self harm, self inflict-, shoot, slash, poison, asphyxiation, suffocation, firearm, burn, drown, gun, immolat-, and monoxide, and the following terms were added by GlaxoSmithKline to the search criteria: accident, lacerat-, MVA, and hospital. The database search included data beginning from the first dose of study medication through 1 day following the last dose.DATA EXTRACTIONSuicidal event narratives were classified using the Columbia Classification Algorithm for Suicide Assessment. Additionally, changes on rating scale items for depressed mood and suicidality were analyzed.DATA SYNTHESISIn the MDD population, the incidence of suicidal behavior or ideation was 17/3,179 (0.53%) versus 11/2,310 (0.48%) for the bupropion and placebo groups, respectively (OR = 1.28; 95% CI, 0.59-2.86). For suicidal behavior, the incidence was 8/3,179 (0.25%) versus 2/2,310 (0.09%), respectively (OR = 3.52; 95% CI, 0.81-24.48). No suicidal behavior event was noted in the other indications, and no completed suicides were reported during treatment. No significant worsening was observed for bupropion relative to placebo on the rating scale items. No differential treatment effects were observed by gender or age; regardless of treatment, however, the 18- to 24-year-old group had the greatest odds of having a suicide event.CONCLUSIONSAlthough no statistically significant differences were observed between bupropion and placebo in expressed suicidal ideation or behavior, we believe that all patients treated with antidepressants should receive careful monitoring for clinical worsening, suicidality, or unusual changes in behavior.

Abstract The efficacy, safety and tolerability of bupropion XR and venlafaxine XR was assessed and compared with placebo in adult outpatients with major depressive disorder (MDD). Adults meeting DSM-IV criteria for MDD with a minimum Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) 17-Item total score of ≥18 were randomized to eight weeks of double-blind treatment with either bupropion XR (150 mg/day), venlafaxine XR (75 mg/day) or placebo. At the end of the fourth week of treatment, a dosage increase to bupropion XR 300 mg/day or venlafaxine XR 150 mg/day was allowed if, in the opinion of the investigator, response was inadequate. The primary efficacy endpoint was mean change from baseline at week 8 in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score last observation carried forward (LOCF). Mean changes from baseline at week 8 (LOCF) in MADRS total score were statistically significant for bupropion XR and venlafaxine XR patients compared to the placebo group: −16.0 for bupropion XR ( P = 0.006 vs placebo), −17.1 for venlafaxine XR ( P < 0.001 vs placebo) and −13.5 for placebo. Secondary outcomes (including CGI-S, HAM-A, MEI, Q-LES-Q-SF, responder and remitter analyses) also improved significantly for both active treatment groups compared with placebo. The most frequently reported adverse events were dry mouth and insomnia for bupropion XR, and nausea, hyperhidrosis, fatigue, and insomnia for venlafaxine XR. In this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, bupropion XR at doses up to 300 mg/day and venlafaxine XR at doses up to 150 mg/day demonstrated comparable antidepressant efficacy.

The effects of bupropion on blood pressure and heart rate were evaluated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of community volunteers with untreated mild (stage 1) hypertension (systolic blood pressure [SBP],. 140-159 min Hg, and/or diastolic blood pressure, 90-99 min Hg). Three hundred subjects were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to 4 weeks of placebo or bupropion sustained release (SR) 150 300, or 400 mg/d. Mean clinical blood pressures decreased from baseline to the end of protocol in all groups (n = 296): -6.53 -6.46, -4.20, -4.87 min Hg for SBP; and -2.36, -2.27, -1.95, -1.55 mm Hg for diastolic blood pressure. for each group, respectively. Although decreases in mean clinical blood pressure were observed in all groups, the reduction in SBP was less on bupropion SR 300 mg/d than on placebo (-4.20 vs -6.53 mm Ha, respectively; Delta = 2.33, P = 0.020). Neither mean 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure measurements nor the proportion of subjects with clinically significant increases in blood pressure differed between any bupropion SR dose and placebo. Mean heart rate increases were small but statistically significant at 400 mg/d versus placebo (2.28 vs -0.64 beats/min; Delta = 2.92, P = 0.004). Although only minor effects on blood pressure were observed in this trial, an infrequent association of bupropion therapy and treatment-emergent hypertension cannot be ruled out.

PURPOSE:Reports from the GlaxoSmithKline Bupropion Pregnancy Registry suggested an increase in cardiovascular defects following exposure to bupropion during pregnancy. We conducted a study of congenital malformations among infants born to women exposed to bupropion during their first trimester. METHODS:The study used data from UnitedHealthcare between January 1995 and September 2004. We calculated the prevalence of all congenital malformations and cardiovascular malformations associated with bupropion exposure in the estimated first trimester (1213 infants), compared with (1) other antidepressant exposure in the first trimester (4743 infants) and (2) bupropion exposure outside the first trimester (1049 infants). Malformation cases were confirmed through medical record abstraction. We calculated adjusted odds ratios (AORs) using the GEE form of logistic regression. RESULTS:For all congenital malformations, the prevalence associated with bupropion first trimester was 23.1 per 1000 infants. The AORs were 0.95 (95%CI 0.62-1.45) and 1.00 (95%CI 0.57-1.73) in comparison to other antidepressants (prevalence 23.2 per 1000) and bupropion outside the first trimester (prevalence 21.9 per 1000), respectively. For cardiovascular malformations, the prevalence associated with bupropion first trimester was 10.7 per 1000 infants. The AORs were 0.97 (95%CI 0.52-1.80) and 1.07 (95%CI 0.48-2.40) in comparison to other antidepressants (prevalence 10.8 per 1000) and bupropion outside the first trimester (prevalence 9.5 per 1000), respectively. CONCLUSIONS:Results do not support a hypothesis of a teratogenic effect of first trimester bupropion exposure. The prevalence of malformations associated with bupropion exposure in the first trimester was not increased relative to the comparison groups.

Mundt, James C. PhD*; Greist, John H. MD*; Jefferson, James W. MD*; Katzelnick, David J. MD*; DeBrota, David J. MD†; Chappell, Phillip B. MD‡; Modell, Jack G. MD§ Author Information

OBJECTIVE:To compare the effects on sexual functioning and the antidepressant efficacy of once-daily bupropion extended release (XL) and escitalopram in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD). METHOD:Adult outpatients with moderate to severe DSM-IV-defined MDD and normal sexual functioning were randomly assigned to receive bupropion XL (300-450 mg/day; N = 276), escitalopram (10-20 mg/day; N = 281), or placebo (N = 273) for up to 8 weeks in 2 identically designed, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group studies (study 1 conducted from February 6, 2003, to June 10, 2004; study 2 conducted from January 21, 2003, to June 15, 2004). Data were analyzed prospectively for each study individually, and pooled data were analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS:In both the individual studies and the pooled dataset, the incidence of orgasm dysfunction at week 8 (primary endpoint) and the incidence of worsened sexual functioning at the end of the treatment period were statistically significantly lower with bupropion XL than with escitalopram (p < .05), not statistically different between bupropion XL and placebo (p > or = .067), and statistically significantly higher with escitalopram than with placebo (p < or = .001). The percentages of patients with orgasm dysfunction at week 8 in study 1, study 2, and the pooled dataset, respectively, were 13%, 16%, and 15% with bupropion XL; 32%, 29%, and 30% with escitalopram; and 11%, 8%, and 9% with placebo. The respective percentages of patients with worsened sexual functioning at the end of the treatment period were 18%, 22%, and 20% with bupropion XL; 37%, 34%, and 36% with escitalopram; and 14%, 16%, and 15% with placebo. Mean changes in Changes in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire scores for all domains at week 8 were statistically significantly worse for escitalopram compared with bupropion XL (p < or = .05). Separation from placebo could not be established at a statistical .05 level for bupropion on 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-17) total score. However, escitalopram showed statistical superiority to placebo on HAM-D-17 total score in one of the 2 studies and in the pooled data. Bupropion XL did not statistically differ from escitalopram with respect to mean change in HAM-D-17 total score, HAM-D-17 response or remission rates, percentage of patients much or very much improved on Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scale scores, or mean changes in the Hospital Anxiety and Depression (HAD) scale total score or Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale score at week 8. CONCLUSIONS:Bupropion XL had a sexual tolerability profile significantly better than that of escitalopram with similar HAM-D-17 remission rates and HAD total scores in patients with MDD.

This article presents descriptive and psychometric data from 26,168 Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) scores administered via Interactive Voice Response (IVR) in 17 randomized clinical trials sponsored by 6 pharmaceutical companies. To provide evidence for construct validity, the IVR HAM-D scores before and after randomization are compared, and the change in the IVR HAM-D scores over time after randomization are examined. In addition, the evidence for the reliability of the IVR-administered HAM-D is presented. An examination of the distribution of first-time IVR HAM-Ds before randomization may provide useful information to researchers planning to use the IVR HAM-D as a screening tool for entry or to verify baseline severity in randomized clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE:This multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluated the efficacy and safety of extended-release bupropion (bupropion XL) in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) with prominent symptoms of decreased energy, pleasure, and interest. METHOD:Eligible adult outpatients meeting DSM-IV criteria for MDD were randomly assigned to bupropion XL 300 to 450 mg/day (N = 135) or placebo (N = 139) for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy measure, change from baseline on the 30-item Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self Report (IDS-IVR-30) total score, was obtained using interactive voice response (IVR) technology. Secondary measures included change from baseline on the 30-item Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Clinician-Rated (IDS-C-30) total score and change in domain subset scores for energy, pleasure, and interest; for insomnia; and for anxiety. Response and remission rates were also calculated. Safety was assessed by withdrawal rates, adverse events (AEs), body weight, and vital signs. The study was conducted from June 24, 2003, to June 30, 2004. RESULTS:Bupropion XL was superior to placebo at endpoint in reducing the IDS-IVR-30 total score (p = .018) and the energy, pleasure, and interest domain (p = .007) and the insomnia domain (p = .023) scores. IDS-C-30 outcomes were also significant (p < .001; p < .001, and p = .008, respectively). Clinician-rated remission rates were significantly higher with bupropion XL than placebo (32% vs. 18%, IDS-C-30; 41% vs. 27%, IDS-IVR-30), as were response rates (50% vs. 35%, IDS-C-30; 53% vs. 38%, Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement of Illness). Most AEs were mild or moderate. The incidence of a >or= 7% body weight loss was 3.7% with bupropion XL and 1.4% with placebo. CONCLUSION:Bupropion XL was effective and well tolerated in MDD patients with decreased energy, pleasure, and interest.

In this double-blind, multicenter study, bupropion XL, a norepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibitor, and venlafaxine XR, a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, were compared with regard to sexual functioning, efficacy, and tolerability. A total of 348 sexually active adult outpatients with depression were randomized to receive bupropion XL (titrated to a target dose of 300-450 mg/d) or venlafaxine XR (titrated to a target dose of 150-225 mg/d) for 12 weeks. Total scores on the primary dependent variable, the Changes in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (self-report), increased for subjects receiving bupropion XL and decreased for those treated with venlafaxine XR; the mean change scores differed significantly between groups from week 2 onward. Among subjects with normal pretreatment sexual functioning, Changes in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire total scores remained essentially unchanged for the bupropion XL group but were decreased significantly for the venlafaxine XR group; mean change scores also differed between groups from week 2 onward. Although the therapies resulted in similar change on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, remission rates were significantly higher among those treated with bupropion XL (46%) versus venlafaxine XR (33%) (odds ratio, 1.93; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-3.46). Aside from adverse effects of venlafaxine XR on sexual function, both treatments were reasonably well tolerated. In conclusion, in this patient population (ie, relatively young, sexually active outpatients), bupropion XL was at least as effective as venlafaxine XR and had a significantly more favorable sexual side effect profile.

BACKGROUND: The neurochemical and biological effects of antidepressant medications have become better defined over the last decade. When the anti-depressant bupropion was introduced in the United States in 1989, the specific pharmacologic basis of its clinical effects was uncertain. Research conducted over the past decade has significantly advanced the understanding of the neuropharmacology of bupropion and has demonstrated a novel mechanism of antidepressant activity. This article discusses the mechanism of action of bupropion and relates the drug's neuropharmacologic effects to its clinical efficacy and tolerability profiles. DATA SOURCES: Data were obtained via the MEDLINE database in an English-language search spanning the period 1965 to May 2002 and using the search terms bupropion, bupropion SR, and antidepressants, as well as from the manufacturer's bupropion databases. CONCLUSIONS: The preclinical and clinical data show that bupropion acts via dual inhibition of norepinephrine and dopamine reuptake and is devoid of clinically significant serotonergic effects or direct effects on postsynaptic receptors. Dual norepinephrine and dopamine reuptake inhibition is associated with a unique clinical profile. Bupropion has demonstrated efficacy comparable to that of other antidepressants. However, because bupropion is a selective norepinephrine and dopamine reuptake inhibitor with no serotonergic activity, common antidepressant-associated side effects, such as sexual dysfunction, weight gain, and sedation, are not associated with bupropion therapy.

Principal component (PC) analysis is a statistical technique that has been used to identify core depression symptoms on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D). PC analysis is also a useful method to identify unidimensional scales of the HAM-D that are more sensitive to change following antidepressant treatment. Although there have been previous PC investigations of various versions of the HAM-D, there have been no investigations of the 31-item HAM-D scale or investigations that include subjects administered bupropion SR. We performed a PC analysis on data from 910 outpatients who participated in randomized, double-blind trials evaluating bupropion SR versus placebo for major depression. The goal of our analysis was to 1) identify components (domains) of the 31-item HAM-D and 2) determine patient response to bupropion SR using the domains identified. PC analysis produced a solution comprised of 7 domains of the HAM-D that accounted for approximately 49% of the total variance. Bupropion SR demonstrated a significant reduction (p<.01, least square mean change) in symptoms over placebo on 4 domains (cognitive, retardation, fatigue/interest, and anxiety items).