The Assessment in Work Productivity and the Relationship with Cognitive Symptoms (AtWoRC) study aimed to assess the association between cognitive symptoms and work productivity in gainfully employed patients receiving vortioxetine for a major depressive episode (MDE).

Patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder (MDD) and treated with vortioxetine independently of study enrollment were assessed over 52 weeks at visits that emulated a real-life setting. Patients were classified as those receiving vortioxetine as the first treatment for their current MDE (first treatment) or having shown inadequate response to a previous antidepressant (switch). The primary endpoint was the correlation between changes in patient-reported cognitive symptoms (20-item Perceived Deficits Questionnaire [PDQ-D-20]) and changes in work productivity loss (Work Limitations Questionnaire [WLQ]) at week 12. Additional assessments included changes in symptom and disease severity, cognitive performance, functioning, work loss, and safety.

In the week 12 primary analysis, 196 eligible patients at 26 Canadian sites were enrolled, received at least one treatment dose, and attended at least one postbaseline study visit. This analysis demonstrated a significant, strong correlation between PDQ-D-20 and WLQ productivity loss scores (r=0.634; p<0.001), and this correlation was significant in both first treatment and switch patients (p<0.001). A weaker correlation between Digit Symbol Substitution Test and WLQ scores was found (r=−0.244; p=0.003).

At 12 weeks, improvements in cognitive dysfunction were significantly associated with improvements in workplace productivity in patients with MDD, suggesting a role for vortioxetine in functional recovery in MDD.

Compulsivity refers to a tendency toward repetitive habitual behaviors. Multiple disorders have compulsive symptoms at their core, including substance use disorders, gambling disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. The aim of this study was to validate a scale for the objective, transdiagnostic measurement of compulsivity.

The 15-item Cambridge–Chicago Compulsivity Trait Scale (CHI-T) was developed for the rapid but comprehensive measurement of compulsivity. Adults aged 18–29y were recruited using media advertisements, and completed the CHI-T in addition to demographic, clinical, and cognitive assessment. The validity and psychometric properties of the scale were quantified.

A total of 112 participants completed the study. The scale yielded a normal distribution with very few outliers. It had excellent psychometric properties, with high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha=0.8), and excellent convergent validity against gold-standard assessments of compulsive symptoms (each p<0.001 for gambling disorder, obsessive-compulsive, and substance use disorder symptoms). Total scores on the scale correlated significantly with less risk-adjustment on the decision-making task (rigid response style), and divergent validity was confirmed against other cognitive domains (response inhibition and executive planning). The above significant findings withstood Bonferroni correction. Factor analysis suggested the existence of two latent factors: one related mainly to reward-seeking and the need for perfection, and the other relating to anxiolytic/soothing features of compulsivity.

The CHI-T, a scale designed to measure transdiagnostic compulsivity, appears to show excellent psychometric properties in a normative population and merits further investigation in the context of clinical patient populations, including in treatment trials.

This post-hoc pooled analysis evaluated categorical change in functional impairment in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) treated with desvenlafaxine versus placebo and examined whether early improvement in functioning predicted functional outcomes at study endpoint.

Data were pooled from eight randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of desvenlafaxine for the treatment of MDD, including adults who were randomly assigned to receive desvenlafaxine 50 or 100 mg/d or placebo (N=3,384). Shift tables were generated for categorical changes in functional impairment from baseline based on Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) subscale scores. The categories were none/mild (0–3), moderate (4–6), and marked/extreme (7–10). Treatment comparisons for prespecified shifts of interest and predictive value of week 2 or 4 improvement in SDS subscale scores for functional outcome at week 8 were assessed using logistic regression.

Greater proportions of patients receiving desvenlafaxine 50 and 100 mg achieved improvement from baseline to week 8 for each prespecified shift endpoint versus placebo (all p ≤ 0.02). Early improvement in SDS subscale scores was a statistically significant predictor of functional outcome at week 8, both overall and for each treatment group (all p<0.0001).

Treatment with desvenlafaxine 50 or 100 mg/d led to significantly greater categorical improvement in functional impairment versus placebo, and improvement in SDS subscale scores significantly predicted functional outcome. Monitoring patient progress early in the course of antidepressant treatment using a functional assessment such as the SDS may help clinicians determine whether or not treatment adjustments are needed.

Our aim was to describe the efficacy and tolerability of pimavanserin, a highly selective serotonin 5-HT2A receptor inverse agonist/antagonist indicated for the treatment of hallucinations and delusions associated with Parkinson’s disease psychosis (PDP), using the metrics of number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH).

Categorical efficacy and tolerability data were extracted from the clinical trial databases of the double-blind placebo-controlled studies of pimavanserin in persons with PDP. NNT and NNH values were calculated with their respective 95% confidence intervals. The likelihood to be helped or harmed (LHH) was then calculated contrasting therapeutic response versus discontinuation because of an adverse event.

NNT values for pimavanserin 34 mg/d versus placebo for several definitions of clinical response are <10, and as robust as 4. NNH values for tolerability outcomes for pimavanserin 34 mg/d (as well as for doses that range from 8.5 to 51 mg/d) are >10, and/or are not statistically significant, and/or show an advantage for pimavanserin over placebo (such as for postural hypotension). In terms of LHH, pimavanserin 34 mg/d is about five times more likely to result in clinical response (as measured by a ≥3 point decrease from baseline on the Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms adapted for Parkinson’s disease) versus discontinuation due to an adverse event.

Using the metrics of NNT, NNH, and LHH, pimavanserin 34 mg/d for the treatment of PDP appears to have a compelling benefit/risk profile.

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.

Gambling is a commonplace phenomenon, existing along a continuum from occasional gambling to functionally impairing gambling disorder. The internet may act as a conduit for some gambling behaviors. The impact of problematic internet use on clinical and cognitive features relevant to gambling has received little research attention.

A total of 206 adults aged 18–30 years who gamble at least five times per year were recruited from the general community and undertook detailed clinical and cognitive assessments. Problematic internet use was defined using a total score of 5 or more on Young’s Diagnostic Questionnaire (YDQ). Linear regression was employed to evaluate the relative contribution of addictive-related, impulsive-related, and compulsive-related measures in predicting YDQ total scores in gamblers.

Gamblers with problematic internet use (18% of the sample) reported lower quality of life, lower self-esteem, elevated rates of intermittent explosive disorder, gambling disorder symptoms, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms, antisocial personality disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), as well as relative deficits in decision making and spatial working memory. In linear regression, the extent of problematic internet use was most significantly associated with increased gambling disorder symptoms and increased ADHD symptoms.

Problematic internet use in gamblers is associated with worse quality of life, more problem/pathological gambling symptoms, more psychiatric morbidities, and select cognitive impairment. Refinement of the definition of problematic internet use and exploration of its clinical and cognitive associations are likely to be highly relevant to the treatment of problematic gambling.

To evaluate the effects of levomilnacipran extended-release (ER) on suicidal ideation and behavior in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD).

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).

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%).

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.

Cariprazine, a dopamine D3/D2 partial agonist atypical antipsychotic with preferential binding to D3 receptors, is approved for the treatment of schizophrenia and manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder. The efficacy and safety of cariprazine was established in three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 6-week trials in patients with acute exacerbation of schizophrenia. This 53-week study evaluated the long-term safety and tolerability of cariprazine in patients with schizophrenia.

This was a multicenter, open-label, flexible-dose study of cariprazine 3–9 mg/d in adults with schizophrenia. Participants included new patients and patients who had completed one of two phase III lead-in studies (NCT01104766, NCT01104779). Eligible patients entered a no-drug screening period of up to 1 week followed by 48 weeks of flexibly dosed, open-label cariprazine treatment (3–9 mg/d) and 4 weeks of safety follow-up.

A total of 586 patients received open-label cariprazine treatment, ~39% of whom completed the study. No unexpected safety issues or deaths were reported. The most common (≥10%) adverse events (AEs) observed were akathisia (16%), headache (13%), insomnia (13%), and weight gain (10%). Serious AEs occurred in 59 (10.1%) patients, and 73 (12.5%) patients discontinued the study due to AEs during open-label treatment. Mean changes in metabolic, hepatic, and cardiovascular parameters were not considered clinically relevant. Mean body weight increased by 1.5 kg during the study, prolactin levels decreased slightly, and measures of efficacy remained stable.

Long-term cariprazine treatment at doses up to 9 mg/d appeared to be generally safe and well tolerated in patients with schizophrenia.

The aim of this post-hoc analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of lurasidone in treating patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) with mixed features who present with mild and moderate-to-severe levels of anxiety.

The data in this analysis were derived from a study of patients meeting the DSM–IV–TR criteria for unipolar MDD, with a Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score ≥26, presenting with two or three protocol-defined manic symptoms, who were randomized to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with either lurasidone 20–60 mg/day (n=109) or placebo (n=100). Anxiety severity was evaluated using the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM–A). To evaluate the effect of baseline anxiety on response to lurasidone, the following two anxiety groups were defined: mild anxiety (HAM–A≤14) and moderate-to-severe anxiety (HAM–A≥15). Change from baseline in MADRS total score was analyzed for each group using a mixed model for repeated measures.

Treatment with lurasidone was associated with a significant week 6 change versus placebo in MADRS total score for patients with both mild anxiety (–18.4 vs. –12.8, p<0.01, effect size [ES]=0.59) and moderate-to-severe anxiety (–22.0 vs. –13.0, p<0.001, ES=0.95). Treatment with lurasidone was associated with a significant week 6 change versus placebo in HAM–A total score for patients with both mild anxiety (–7.6 vs. –4.0, p<0.01, ES=0.62), and moderate-to-severe anxiety (–11.4 vs. –6.1, p<0.0001, ES=0.91).

In this post-hoc analysis of an MDD with mixed features and anxiety population, treatment with lurasidone was associated with significant improvement in both depressive and anxiety symptoms in subgroups with mild and moderate-to-severe levels of anxiety at baseline.

The aim of this post-hoc analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of lurasidone in treating major depressive disorder (MDD) with mixed features including irritability.

The data in this analysis were derived from a study of patients meeting DSM–IV–TR criteria for unipolar MDD, with a Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score ≥26, presenting with two or three protocol-defined manic symptoms, and who were randomized to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with either lurasidone 20–60 mg/d (n=109) or placebo (n=100). We defined “irritability” as a score ≥2 on both the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) irritability item (#5) and the disruptive-aggressive item (#9). Endpoint change in the MADRS and YMRS items 5 and 9 were analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures for patients with and without irritability.

Some 20.7% of patients met the criteria for irritability. Treatment with lurasidone was associated with a significant week 6 change vs. placebo in MADRS score in both patients with (–22.6 vs. –9.5, p<0.0001, effect size [ES]=1.4) and without (–19.9 vs. –13.8, p<0.0001, ES=0.7) irritability. In patients with irritable features, treatment with lurasidone was associated with significant week 6 changes vs. placebo in both the YMRS irritability item (–1.4 vs. –0.3, p=0.0012, ES=1.0) and the YMRS disruptive-aggressive item (–1.0 vs. –0.3, p=0.0002, ES=1.2).

In our post-hoc analysis of a randomized, placebo-controlled, 6-week trial, treatment with lurasidone significantly improved depressive symptoms in MDD patients with mixed features including irritability. In addition, irritability symptoms significantly improved in patients treated with lurasidone.

This post-hoc analysis assessed rates of symptomatic and functional remission, as well as recovery (combination of symptomatic and functional remission), in patients treated with lurasidone for major depressive disorder (MDD) associated with subthreshold hypomanic symptoms (mixed features).

Patients with MDD plus two or three manic symptoms (defined as per the DSM–5 mixed-features specifier) were randomly assigned to flexible-dose lurasidone 20–60 mg/day (n=109) or placebo (n=100) for 6 weeks, followed by a 3-month open-label, flexible-dose extension study for U.S. sites only (n=48). Cross-sectional recovery was defined as the presence of both symptomatic remission (Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale score ≤ 12) and functional remission (all Sheehan Disability Scale [SDS] domain scores ≤3) at week 6, and at both months 1 and 3 of the extension study (“sustained recovery”).

A significantly higher proportion of lurasidone-treated patients (31.3%) achieved recovery (assessed cross-sectionally) compared to placebo (12.2%, p=0.002) at week 6. The number of manic symptoms at baseline moderated the effect size for attaining cross-sectional recovery for lurasidone treatment (vs. placebo) (p=0.028). Sustained recovery rates were higher in patients initially treated with lurasidone (20.8%) versus placebo (12.5%).

In this post-hoc analysis of a placebo-controlled study with open-label extension that involved patients with MDD and mixed features, lurasidone was found to significantly improve the rate of recovery at 6 weeks (vs. placebo) that was sustained at month 3 of the extension study. The presence of two (as opposed to three) manic symptoms moderated recovery at the acute study endpoint.

This study examined the chronic effects of aripiprazole and cariprazine on serotonin (5-HT1A and 5-HT2A) and glutamate (NMDA and AMPA) receptor subtypes. In addition, the effects of aripiprazole on D2 and D3 receptors were tested and compared with previously reported cariprazine data.

Rats received vehicle, aripiprazole (2, 5, or 15 mg/kg), or cariprazine (0.06, 0.2, or 0.6 mg/kg) for 28 days. Receptor levels were quantified using autoradiographic assays on brain sections from the medial prefrontal cortex (MPC), dorsolateral frontal cortex (DFC), nucleus accumbens (NAc), caudate-putamen medial (CPu–M), caudate-putamen lateral (CPu–L), hippocampal CA1 (HIPP–CA1) and CA3 (HIPP–CA3) regions, and the entorhinal cortex (EC).

Similar to previous findings with cariprazine, aripiprazole upregulated D2 receptor levels in various regions; D3 receptor changes were less than those reported with cariprazine. All aripiprazole doses and higher cariprazine doses increased 5-HT1A receptors in the MPC and DFC. Higher aripiprazole and all cariprazine doses increased 5-HT1A receptors in HIPP–CA1 and HIPP–CA3. Aripiprazole decreased 5-HT2A receptors in the MPC, DFC, HIPP–CA1, and HIPP–CA3 regions. Both compounds decreased NMDA receptors and increased AMPA receptors in select brain regions.

Long-term administration of aripiprazole and cariprazine had similar effects on 5-HT1A, NMDA, and AMPA receptors. However, cariprazine more profoundly increased D3 receptors while aripiprazole selectively reduced 5-HT2A receptors. These results suggest that the unique actions of cariprazine on dopamine D3 receptors, combined with its effects on serotonin and glutamate receptor subtypes, may confer the clinical benefits, safety, and tolerability of this novel compound in schizophrenia and bipolar mania.

These post hoc analyses evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of vortioxetine versus placebo in patients aged ≥55 years with major depressive disorder (MDD).

Study-level efficacy data from 12 short-term, fixed-dose, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of vortioxetine 5–20 mg/day were assessed using a random-effects meta-analysis. Adverse events (AEs), vital signs, ECG values, liver enzymes, and body weight were pooled from the same studies. Patients had baseline Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total scores ranging from 22–30.

1508 patients (mean age=62.4 years; range, 55–88 years) were included. Mean differences from placebo in change from baseline to study end (6/8 weeks) in MADRS were –2.56 (5 mg, n=324, P=0.035), –2.87 (10 mg, n=222, P=0.007), –1.32 (15 mg, n=90, P=NS), and –4.65 (20 mg, n=165, P=0.012). Odds ratios for response versus placebo were 1.6 (5 mg, P=NS), 1.8 (10 mg, P=0.002), 1.2 (15 mg, P=NS), and 2.5 (20 mg, P<0.001), and for remission versus placebo were 1.5 (5 mg, P=NS), 1.5 (10 mg, P=NS), 1.4 (15 mg, P=NS), and 2.7 (20 mg, P=0.001). The proportion of patients with AEs for placebo and vortioxetine 5–20 mg was 61.5% and 62.3%, respectively, with no increase at increased doses. Vortioxetine demonstrated a placebo-level incidence of serious AEs (1.2%). AEs occurring in ≥5% of any treatment group were nausea, headache, diarrhea, dizziness, dry mouth, constipation, fatigue, vomiting, and anxiety. No clinically significant mean changes in vital signs, ECG values, liver enzymes, or body weight emerged during treatment.

Vortioxetine 5–20 mg/day is efficacious and well tolerated in MDD patients aged ≥55 years, a group that is often comorbid with other conditions and treated with other medications.

Evaluate the efficacy and safety of asenapine 2.5 mg twice daily (bid; n=97) or 5 mg bid (n=113) versus placebo (n=101) in adults with acute exacerbation of schizophrenia.

Adults with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) schizophrenia diagnosis were randomized to asenapine 2.5 mg bid, 5 mg bid, placebo, or olanzapine 15 mg once daily. The primary objective was to test superiority of asenapine versus placebo as measured by the change from baseline to day 42 in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score. The key safety objective was to evaluate weight change in asenapine versus olanzapine at day 42.

The primary efficacy endpoint was met; the difference in least squares mean change from baseline to day 42 in PANSS total score between asenapine 5 mg bid and placebo was −5.5 points (unadjusted 95% CI: −10.1, −1.0; multiplicity adjusted P=0.0356). Neither asenapine 2.5 mg bid nor olanzapine 15mg were superior to placebo.

Both asenapine groups demonstrated significantly less weight gain than olanzapine at day 42. Significantly higher incidences of oral hypoesthesia and dysgeusia (combined) for asenapine 2.5 mg bid (5.2% vs 0.0%; P=0.0217) and 5 mg bid (7.1% vs 0.0%; P=0.0033) were observed versus placebo. There were no significant differences between asenapine and placebo for insomnia, extrapyramidal symptoms, akathisia, dizziness, or combination of somnolence/sedation/hypersomnia.

This study supports previous efficacy and safety findings of asenapine; asenapine 5 mg bid is the lowest effective dose in adults with schizophrenia. Asenapine was associated with significantly less weight gain than olanzapine at day 42.

This analysis of the Paliperidone Palmitate Research in Demonstrating Effectiveness (PRIDE) study (NCT01157351) compared outcomes after administration of once-monthly paliperidone palmitate (PP) vs conventional oral antipsychotics (COAs) or atypical oral antipsychotics (AOAs).

PRIDE was a 15-month study of 444 individuals with schizophrenia and a history of incarceration. They were randomly assigned to PP or to 1 of 7 commonly prescribed OAs. Primary endpoint was time to first treatment failure (TF). Event-free probabilities were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method; treatment group differences (PP vs COAs, PP vs AOAs, and PP vs oral paliperidone/risperidone) were assessed using a log-rank test. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression models. No adjustment was made for multiplicity.

Compared with PP, risk for first TF was 34% higher with COAs (HR: 1.34; 95% CI: 0.80–2.25), 41% higher with AOAs (HR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.06–1.88), and 39% higher with paliperidone/risperidone (HR: 1.39; 95% CI: 0.97–1.99). Incidences of extrapyramidal symptom–related adverse events (AEs) were 45.7%, 13.7%, and 10.6% in the COA, AOA, and oral paliperidone/risperidone groups vs 23.9% in the PP group. Incidences of prolactin-related AEs were 5.7%, 3.8%, and 3.5% vs 23.5%, and incidences of ≥7% weight increase were 11.4%, 14.9%, and 16.0% vs 32.4%.

Results suggest a lower risk of TF but a higher rate of some AEs after treatment with PP vs COAs, AOAs, and paliperidone/risperidone. Deselection of specific OAs and low patient-compliance rates with OAs likely biased the safety results.

A post hoc analysis evaluated the effects of levomilnacipran ER on individual symptoms and symptom domains in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD).

Data were pooled from 5 Phase III trials comprising 2598 patients. Effects on depression symptoms were analyzed based on change from baseline in individual Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) item scores. A1dditional evaluations included resolution of individual symptoms (defined as a MADRS item score ≤1 at end of treatment) and concurrent resolution of all 10 MADRS items, all MADRS6 subscale items, and all items included in different symptom clusters (Dysphoria, Retardation, Vegetative Symptoms, Anhedonia).

Significantly greater mean improvements were found on all MADRS items except Reduced Appetite with levomilnacipran ER treatment compared with placebo. Resolution of individual symptoms occurred more frequently with levomilnacipran ER than placebo for each MADRS item (all P<.05), with odds ratios (ORs) ranging from 1.26 to 1.75; resolution of all 10 items was also greater with levomilnacipran ER (OR=1.57; P=.0051). Significant results were found for the MADRS6 subscale (OR=1.73; P<.0001) and each symptom cluster (OR range, 1.39 [Vegetative Symptoms] to 1.84 [Retardation]; all clusters, P<.01).

Adult MDD patients treated with levomilnacipran ER improved across a range of depression symptoms and symptom domains.