Publications

INTRODUCTION

As a leading cause of disability, major depressive disorder (MDD) is characterized by reduced quality of life and altered functioning. Current pharmaceutical treatment options are limited in their success by modest effects and adverse events that often lead to discontinuation. One current trend in antidepressant development is to combine inhibition of the serotonin transporter with other pharmacological targets, including the norepinephrine transporter or different serotonin receptors.

AREAS COVERED

In a span of < 3 years, the FDA approved three new antidepressants for the treatment of MDD: vilazodone in January 2011, levomilnacipran in July 2013 and vortioxetine in September 2013. This article reviews the efficacy, safety and tolerability of these three drugs mainly from the Phase III trial data.

EXPERT OPINION

All three drugs are effective in the treatment of MDD, but data comparing them to other antidepressants is currently lacking. Vilazodone was proposed to produce a more rapid onset and have fewer sexual side effects but neither effect has been conclusively shown. Levomilnacipran appears to be effective in improving functional impairment, including both social and work functioning. Vortioxetine is currently the only drug of the three with proven efficacy in elderly patients. It also appears to have cognitive enhancing properties which are largely independent of improved depressive symptoms. Overall, these drugs represent a promising step forward in antidepressant drug development.

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AFib) is common in heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Current AFib stroke risk prediction models include the presence of HF but do not specifically include HFpEF as a risk factor. Whether a history of AFib should be used to identify patients with HFpEF who are at risk has not been established.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Baseline characteristics and outcomes of patients with HFpEF in the Irbesartan in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction Trial were analyzed in relation to AFib. At baseline, 1209 (29.3%) had a history of AFib. Of these 557 (13.5%) had history of AFib alone, whereas 670 (16.2%) had both a history and AFib on ECG; 2901 (70.3%) had neither. There were no significant differences in the risk of stroke between the 2 groups with a history of AFib who did or did not have AFib present on baseline ECG. During a median follow-up of 53 months, a fatal or nonfatal stroke occurred in 6.5% (79/1209) patients with history of AFib compared with 3.9% (114/2901) with no AFib. Having a history of AFib was independently associated with higher risk of stroke (hazard ratio, 2.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-3.2; P<0.0001) compared with those with no history of AFib.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with HFpEF, a history of AFib was common and independently associated with increased risk of stroke, regardless of whether AFib was present on ECG. Patients with HFpEF and a history of AFib should be considered at risk. Further studies are needed to determine whether this risk can be safely reduced.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL

http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT000095238.