Adsorptive stripping voltammetric determination of venlafaxine in urine with a mercury film microelectrode

An adsorptive stripping voltammetric procedure for the determination of the antidepressant venlafaxine in urine using a mercury film microelectrode wasdeveloped. The method is based on controlled adsorptive accumulation of the drug at the potential of 1.00V (vs. Ag/AgCl) in the presence of 1.25 x10 -2 molL- 1 borate buffer (pH 8.7). Urine samples were analyzed directly after performing a ten-fold dilution with the supporting electrolyte but without other pretreatment. The limit of detection obtained for a 30 s collection time was 0.693x 10- 6 mol L -1. Recovery experimentsgave good results at the 10 -6 mol L- 1 level (bias less 5% were obtained).

A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Predictor of Treatment Response to Venlafaxine in Generalized Anxiety Disorder

Background: Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) holds promise as a noninvasive means of identifying neural responses that can be used to predict treatment response before beginning a drug trial. Imaging paradigms employing facial expressions as presented stimuli have been shown to activate the amygdala and anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). Here, we sought to determine whether pretreatment amygdala and rostral ACC (rACC) reactivity to facial expressions could predict treatment outcomes in patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD).Methods: Fifteen subjects (12 female subjects) with GAD participated in an open-label venlafaxine treatment trial. Functional magnetic resonance imaging responses to facial expressions of emotion collected before subjects began treatment were compared with changes in anxiety following 8 weeks of venlafaxine administration. In addition, the magnitude of fMRI responses of subjects with GAD were compared with that of 15 control subjects (12 female subjects) who did not have GAD and did not receive venlafaxine treatment.Results The magnitude of treatment response was predicted by greater pretreatment reactivity to fearful faces in rACC and lesser reactivity in the amygdala. These individual differences in pretreatment rACC and amygdala reactivity within the GAD group were observed despite the fact that 1) the overall magnitude of pretreatment rACC and amygdala reactivity did not differ between subjects with GAD and control subjects and 2) there was no main effect of treatment on rACC-amygdala reactivity in the GAD group.Conclusions: These findings show that this pattern of rACC-amygdala responsivity could prove useful as a predictor of venlafaxine treatment response in patients with GAD.

Efficacy and adverse effects of venlafaxine in children and adolescents with ADHD : a systematic review of non-controlled and controlled trials

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common psychiatric disorder in children and adolescents. Stimulants are commonly prescribed for ADHD management. There is clinical trial evidence that some medications with noradrenergic properties such as atomoxetine are effective. It is of theoretical and practical importance if other agents with noradrenergic properties display a comparable pattern of efficacy.
This paper is a systematic review of the efficacy and safety of venlafaxine for treating children and adolescents with ADHD. MEDLINE, Google scholar, Scopus, and Web of science (ISI) databases were electronically searched in July 2012, updated on November 2012. Time and language of publication were not exclusion criteria. Efficacy outcomes were assessed by a valid and reliable parent- and/or teacher-reported instrument to evaluate clinical symptoms. Adverse effects were also evaluated.

There were three uncontrolled trials and only two double blind controlled clinical trials. Venlafaxine appeared effective for treating ADHD. The rates of some adverse effects of venlafaxine were less than those documented for methylphenidate.

While one of the two small controlled trials did not find difference between venlafaxine ad methylphenidate, the other trial reported lower efficacy for venlafaxine. Headache, insomnia, and nausea were among the most common adverse effects.

This systematic review provides preliminary support that venlafaxine may have short term utility in treating ADHD in children and adolescents. However, before recommending venlafaxine for treatment, more robust and larger clinical trials, in particular providing evidence of its long-term efficacy, safety and tolerability are required.

Double-blind comparison of venlafaxine and amitriptyline in outpatients with major depression with or without melancholia

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of venlafaxine and amitriptyline in outpatients with major depression with or without melancholia. This was an 8-week, multicentre, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group comparison of venlafaxine and amitriptyline. Outpatients with DSM-IV major depression, a minimum score of 20 on the 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), and depressive symptoms for at least 1 month were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned to venlafaxine or amitriptyline, both drugs titrated to a maximum of 150 mg/day until study day 15. The primary efficacy variables were the final on-therapy scores on the HAM-D, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale and Clinical Global Impression severity scales. Data were evaluated on an intent-to-treat basis using the LOCF method. One hundred and 16 patients were randomized, and 115 were evaluated for efficacy. Both drugs showed efficacy in the treatment of depression with or without melancholia. No significant differences were noted between treatments for any efficacy parameter. However, significantly (p < 0.05) more patients in the amitriptyline group had at least one adverse event. These results should support the efficacy and tolerability of venlafaxine in comparison with amitriptyline for treating major depression with or without melancholia.

Efficacy of hormone therapy with and without methyltestosterone augmentation of venlafaxine in the treatment of postmenopausal depression: A double-blind controlled pilot study

Objective: This study evaluated the augmentation of venlafaxine with hormone therapy in the treatment of postmenopausal depression. The hormones evaluated were estrogen (0.625 mg) in combination with medroxyprogesterone acetate (2.5 mg) and methyltestosterone (2.5 mg). Design: Seventy-two menopausal women (mean age: 53.6 ± 4.27 years) diagnosed with depression (Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] scores ≥ 20) were treated with venlafaxine and one of the following hormone therapy combinations, in a double-blind regimen: estrogen + medroxyprogesterone + methyltestosterone (group 1, n = 20); estrogen + medroxyprogesterone acetate (group 2, n = 20); methyltestosterone only (group 3, n = 16); and no hormone therapy (group 4, n = 16). Study duration was 24 weeks. Primary efficacy outcome was remission according to the MADRS, whereas secondary efficacy measures included the Clinical Global Impression (CGI), Blatt-Kupperman Index, and Women's Health Questionnaire (WHQ). Results: Forty-eight patients completed the study. All groups showed significant improvement from baseline. Group 3 demonstrated significant improvement on the MADRS compared with placebo (group 4) at weeks 20 (P = 0.048) and 24 (P = 0.030); effect size 8.04 (0.83; 15.26) (P = 0.029), but also had the highest dropout rate. Groups 1 and 3 had significant CGI improvement rates compared with placebo: 42.23% (P = 0.012) and 44.45% (P = 0.08), respectively. There were no differences in the WHQ or BKI scores among the groups. Conclusions: Methyltestosterone 2.5 mg had the highest effect size compared with placebo, but the high dropout rate prevented its efficacy from being determined. Estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone, combined with methyltestosterone or otherwise, demonstrated a trend toward increased efficacy of venlafaxine. Further larger-scale clinical trials are needed to elucidate the findings of this pilot study. © 2006 by The North American Menopause Society.

Physician speciality and pain reduction in patients with depressive symptoms under treatment with venlafaxine

Excessive pain perception may lead to unnecessary diagnostic testing or invasive procedures resulting in iatrogenic complications and prolonged disability. Naturalistic studies on patients with chronic pain and depressive symptoms investigating the impact of medical speciality on treatment outcome in a primary care setting are lacking.

Regional origin and decrease of pain in patients with depressive symptoms under treatment with venlafaxine

Patient's language, tradition, conventions, and customs may all determine integration into a society and are also part of the doctor-patient relationship that influences diagnostic and therapeutic outcome. Language barrier and sociocultural disparity of Eastern and Southern European patients may hamper recovery from pain and depression compared to Middle European patients in Switzerland.

Long lasting phantosmia treated with venlafaxine

Qualitative olfactory disorders such as parosmia and phantosmia are not well investigated. In particular, the causes and treatment options for phantosmia are largely unknown. We report a case of long lasting phantosmia that disappeared under anti-depressive treatment, raising the question to what extent certain forms of qualitative olfactory disorders are an early symptom of depression.

Change in pain severity with open label venlafaxine use in patients with a depressive symptomatology: an observational study in primary care

PURPOSE: Venlafaxine has shown benefit in the treatment of depression and pain. Worldwide data are extensively lacking investigating the outcome of chronic pain patients with depressive symptoms treated by venlafaxine in the primary care setting. This observational study aimed to elucidate the efficacy of venlafaxine and its prescription by Swiss primary care physicians and psychiatrists in patients with chronic pain and depressive symptomatology. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We studied 505 patients with depressive symptoms suffering from chronic pain in a prospective naturalistic Swiss community based observational trial with venlafaxine in primary care. These patients have been treated with venlafaxine by 122 physicians, namely psychiatrists, general practitioners, and internists. RESULTS: On average, patients were treated with 143+/-75 mg (0-450 mg) venlafaxine daily for a follow-up of three months. Venlafaxine proved to be beneficial in the treatment of both depressive symptoms and chronic pain. DISCUSSION: Although side effects were absent in most patients, physicians might have frequently omitted satisfactory response rate of depression by underdosing venlafaxine. Our results reflect the complexity in the treatment of chronic pain in patients with depressive symptoms in primary care. CONCLUSION: Further randomized dose-finding studies are needed to learn more about the appropriate dosage in treating depression and comorbid pain with venlafaxine.