Background: This 8-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, conducted August 2010-May 2012 in the United States, evaluated the safety and efficacy of vortioxetine 10 mg and 15 mg in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). The mechanism of action of vortioxetine is thought to be related to direct modulation of serotonin (5-HT) receptor activity and inhibition of the serotonin transporter.Method: Adults aged 18-75 years with MDD (DSM-IV-TR) and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score ≥ 26 were randomized (1:1:1) to receive vortioxetine 10 mg or 15 mg or placebo once daily, with the primary efficacy end point being change from baseline at week 8 in MADRS analyzed by mixed model for repeated measures. Adverse events were recorded during the study, suicidal ideation and behavior were assessed using the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS), and sexual dysfunction was assessed using the Arizona Sexual Experience (ASEX) scale.
Results:Of the 1,111 subjects screened, 469 subjects were randomized: 160 to placebo, 157 to vortioxetine 10 mg, and 152 to vortioxetine 15 mg. Differences from placebo in the primary efficacy end point were not statistically significant for vortioxetine 10 mg or vortioxetine 15 mg. Nausea, headache, dry mouth, constipation, diarrhea, vomiting, dizziness, and flatulence were reported in ≥ 5% of subjects receiving vortioxetine. Discontinuation due to adverse events occurred in 7 subjects (4.4%) in the placebo group, 8 (5.2%) in the vortioxetine 10 mg group, and 12 (7.9%) in the vortioxetine 15 mg group. ASEX total scores were similar across groups. There were no clinically significant trends within or between treatment groups on the C-SSRS, laboratory values, electrocardiogram, or vital sign parameters.
Conclusions:In this study, vortioxetine did not differ significantly from placebo on MADRS total score after 8 weeks of treatment in MDD subjects. Even among agents indicated for MDD treatment, only 53% of trials demonstrate superiority over placebo. 1 The reasons for such inconsistent results have not been fully elucidated and appear to be multifactorial. A recent meta-analysis 1 found that the baseline severity of symptoms had a stronger correlation with study outcomes than did sample size, study duration, flexible versus fixed dosing, and geographic location of study sites. A similar positive correlation between symptom severity and outcomes was shown in another meta-analysis. 2 In a third analysis, symptom severity was not a significant predictor of the difference between active treatment and placebo, whereas enrollment at academic sites was strongly predictive of positive treatment effects.3 This study suggested that raters in nonacademic settings may have a tendency to overestimate baseline scores that, in turn, could lead to higher placebo responses. Consistent with this observation, results of a study by Kobak et al 4 showed that site-based raters were more likely to assign higher 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score...