Keller Martin, Montgomery Stuart, Ball William, Morrison Mary, Snavely Duane, Liu Guanghan, Hargreaves Richard, Hietala Jarmo, Lines Christopher, Beebe Katherine, Reines Scott
Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
Biol Psychiatry. 2006 Feb 1;59(3):216-23. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.07.013. Epub 2005 Oct 24.
An early clinical trial suggested that the substance P (neurokinin(1) receptor) antagonist, aprepitant, might provide a unique mechanism of antidepressant activity. Phase III trials were conducted to confirm these findings.
Five 8-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-groups, placebo-controlled, multicenter trials in outpatients with Major Depressive Disorder were performed. Aprepitant 160 mg and placebo were included in all trials. Aprepitant 80 mg and paroxetine 20 mg (active comparator) were included in three trials. Approximately 150 patients were enrolled per treatment group in each trial. The primary end point was the mean change-from-baseline of the first 17 items of the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D(17)) score at 8 weeks. A positron emission tomography (PET) study was also performed in normal subjects to determine the relationship between neurokinin(1) receptor occupancy and aprepitant plasma concentrations in dosing regimens relevant to the trials.
No statistically significant differences from placebo on the HAM-D(17) were observed at week 8 for either dose of aprepitant in any of the trials, whereas paroxetine 20 mg was significantly (p <or= .05) more effective than placebo at week 8 in each of the three trials in which it was included. Results from the PET study indicated that the aprepitant dosing regimens provided continuously high levels of neurokinin(1) receptor blockade over 8 weeks.
Because the methodology employed confirmed the antidepressant efficacy of paroxetine, the absence of an effect for aprepitant indicates that it was not an effective treatment for depression. The concept of neurokinin(1) receptor antagonism as an antidepressant mechanism was not supported.
一项早期临床试验表明,P物质(神经激肽1受体)拮抗剂阿瑞匹坦可能提供一种独特的抗抑郁活性机制。开展了III期试验以证实这些发现。
对患有重度抑郁症的门诊患者进行了5项为期8周的随机、双盲、平行组、安慰剂对照的多中心试验。所有试验均纳入了160mg阿瑞匹坦和安慰剂。三项试验纳入了80mg阿瑞匹坦和20mg帕罗西汀(活性对照药)。每项试验中每个治疗组约纳入150名患者。主要终点是第8周时汉密尔顿抑郁评定量表(HAM-D(17))前17项得分相对于基线的平均变化。还对正常受试者进行了正电子发射断层扫描(PET)研究,以确定在与试验相关的给药方案中神经激肽1受体占有率与阿瑞匹坦血浆浓度之间的关系。
在任何一项试验中,两种剂量的阿瑞匹坦在第8周时与安慰剂相比,在HAM-D(17)上均未观察到统计学显著差异,而在纳入20mg帕罗西汀的三项试验中的每项试验中,第8周时帕罗西汀均比安慰剂显著更有效(p≤0.05)。PET研究结果表明,阿瑞匹坦给药方案在8周内提供持续高水平的神经激肽1受体阻断。
由于所采用的方法证实了帕罗西汀的抗抑郁疗效,阿瑞匹坦无效果表明它不是一种有效的抑郁症治疗方法。神经激肽1受体拮抗作为一种抗抑郁机制的概念未得到支持。