Rua part 1

Hire our professional essay experts at Gradehunters.net who are available online 24/7 for an essay paper written to a high standard at an affordable cost.


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

Topic: Dissociative symptom disorder

this is a two part job, this is part one. i need 2 or 3 Scholarly Research Article that is related to this topic. the guideline for the job is uploaded and an example of scholarly research article is also uploaded. the article should have an 

abstract, objective, methods, statistic, results, conclusion, reference. beacuse you will use that same article to do the part 2 of the job. 

(
NR326

Mental

Health

Nursing
RUA:

Scholarly

Article

Review

Guidelines
)

Purpose

The student will review, summarize, and critique a scholarly article related to a mental health topic.

Course outcomes: This assignment enables the student to meet the following course outcomes.

(CO 4) Utilize critical thinking skills in clinical decision-making and implementation of the nursing process for psychiatric/mental health clients. (PO 4)

(CO 5) Utilize available resources to meet self-identified goals for personal, professional, and educational development appropriate to the mental health setting. (PO 5)

(CO 7) Examine moral, ethical, legal, and professional standards and principles as a basis for clinical decision-making. (PO 6)

(CO 9) Utilize research findings as a basis for the development of a group leadership experience. (PO 8)

Due date: Your faculty member will inform you when this assignment is due. The Late Assignment Policy applies to this assignment.

Total points possible: 100 points


Preparing the assignment

1) Follow these guidelines when completing this assignment. Speak with your faculty member if you have questions.

a. Select a scholarly nursing or research article, published within the last five years, related to mental health nursing. The content of the article must relate to evidence-based practice.

· You may need to evaluate several articles to find one that is appropriate.

b. Ensure that no other member of your clinical group chooses the same article, then submit your choice for faculty approval.

c. The submitted assignment should be 2-3 pages in length, excluding the title and reference pages.

2) Include the following sections (detailed criteria listed below and in the Grading Rubric must match exactly).

a. Introduction (10 points/10%)

· Establishes purpose of the paper

· Captures attention of the reader

b. Article Summary (30 points/30%)

· Statistics to support significance of the topic to mental health care

· Key points of the article

· Key evidence presented

· Examples of how the evidence can be incorporated into your nursing practice

c. Article Critique (30 points/30%)

· Present strengths of the article

· Present weaknesses of the article

· Discuss if you would/would not recommend this article to a colleague

d. Conclusion (15 points/15%)

· Provides analysis or synthesis of information within the body of the text

· Supported by ides presented in the body of the paper

· Is clearly written

e. Article Selection and Approval (5 points/5%)

· Current (published in last 5 years)

· Relevant to mental health care

· Not used by another student within the clinical group

· Submitted and approved as directed by instructor

f. APA format and Writing Mechanics (10 points/10%)

NR326 Mental Health Nursing

RUA: Scholarly Article Review Guidelines

NR326 Mental Health Nursing

RUA: Scholarly Article Review Guidelines

NR326_RUA_Scholarly_Article_Review_V4b_FINAL_MAY21 1

· Correct use of standard English grammar and sentence structure

· No spelling or typographical errors

· Document includes title and reference pages

· Citations in the text and reference page

For writing assistance (APA, formatting, or grammar) visit the APA Citation and Writing page in the online library.

Please note that your instructor may provide you with additional assessments in any form to determine that you fully understand the concepts learned in the review module.



Grading Rubric Criteria are met when the student’s application of knowledge demonstrates achievement of the outcomes for this assignment.

Assignment Section and Required Criteria

(Points possible/% of total points available)

Highest Level of Performance

High Level of Performance

Satisfactory Level of Performance

Unsatisfactory Level of Performance

Section not present in paper

Introduction

(10 points/10%)

10 points

8 points

0 points

Required criteria

1. Establishes purpose of the paper

2. Captures attention of the reader

Includes 2 requirements for section.

Includes 1 requirement for section.

No requirements for this section presented.

Article Summary

(30 points/30%)

30 points

25 points

24 points

11 points

0 points

Required criteria

1. Statistics to support significance of the topic to mental health care

2. Key points of the article

3. Key evidence presented

4. Examples of how the evidence can be incorporated into your nursing practice

Includes 4 requirements for section.

Includes 3 requirements for section.

Includes 2 requirements for section.

Includes 1 requirement for section.

No requirements for this section presented.

Article Critique

(30 points/30%)

30 points

25 points

11 points

0 points

Required criteria

1. Present strengths of the article

2. Present weaknesses of the article

3. Discuss if you would/would not recommend this article to a colleague

Includes 3 requirements for section.

Includes 2 requirements for section.

Includes 1 requirement for section.

No requirements for this section presented.

Conclusion

(15 points/15%)

15 points

11 points

6 points

0 points

1. Provides analysis or synthesis of information within the body of the text

2. Supported by ides presented in the body of the paper

3. Is clearly written

Includes 3 requirements for section.

Includes 2 requirements for section.

Includes 1 requirement for section.

No requirements for this section presented.

Article Selection and Approval

(5 points/5%)

5 points

4 points

3 points

2 points

0 points

1. Current (published in last 5 years)

2. Relevant to mental health care

Includes 4

Includes 3

Includes 2

Includes 1

No requirements for

(
NR326

Mental

Health

Nursing
RUA:

Scholarly

Article

Review

Guidelines
)

NR326_RUA_Scholarly_Article_Review_V4b_FINAL_MAY21 1

3. Not used by another student within the clinical group

4. Submitted and approved as directed by instructor

requirements for section.

requirements for section.

requirements for section.

requirement for section.

this section presented.

APA Format and Writing Mechanics

(10 points/10%)

10 points

8 points

7 points

4 points

0 points

1. Correct use of standard English grammar and sentence structure

2. No spelling or typographical errors

3. Document includes title and reference pages

4. Citations in the text and reference page

Includes 4 requirements for section.

Includes 3 requirements for section.

Includes 2 requirements for section.

Includes 1 requirement for section.

No requirements for this section presented.

Total Points Possible = 100 points

Received: 17 May 2016 Revised: 29 July 2016 Accepted: 13 September 2016

DO

I 10.1002/hup.2557

R E S E A R C H A R T I C L E

Effectiveness of agomelatine on anhedonia in depressed
patients: an outpatient, open‐label, real‐world study

Pedro Damian Gargoloff1,2 | Ricardo Corral3 | Luis Herbst4 | Miguel Marquez5 |

Giovanni Martinotti6 | Pedro Rafael Gargoloff2

1 Hospital Alejandro Korn, Melchor Romero, La

Plata, Argentina

2 Clinica City Bell, La Plata, Argentina

3 Departamento de Docencia e Investigacion,

Hospital Jose T Borda, CABA, Argentina

4 Hospital Jose T. Borda, CABA, Argentina

5 ADINEU, CABA, Argentina

6 Department of Neuroscience, Imaging and

Clinical Science, Chieti, Italy

Correspondence

Pedro Damian Gargoloff, Hospital Alejandro

Korn, Melchor Romero, La Plata, Argentina.

Email: [email protected]

Hum Psychopharmacol Clin Exp 2016; 1–7

Abstract

Objective The aim of this real‐world study was to evaluate the effect of agomelatine on anhe-

donia as primary endpoint in outpatients under treatment of major depressive episodes.

Methods The study was an open‐label, multicenter, 8‐week phase IV trial. Two hundred fifty‐

seven (257) patients were recruited, and 143 patients were included in the analysis. Agomelatine

was administered orally as a 25‐mg tablet. The dose could be increased to 50 mg after 2 weeks of

treatment.

Results An improvement in the severity of anhedonia (Snaith‐Hamilton Pleasure Scale total

score) was observed from 8.5 points at baseline to 4.1 at week 8, statistically significant

(p < 0.05) from the first week. Significant decreases in scores on the severity of depression (Quick

Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology 16‐item Self‐Report [QIDS‐SR‐16]), anxiety (General-

ized Anxiety Disorder 7‐item scale), and in overall clinical status (CGI) were also found over

8 weeks, independently from the presence of a first or recurrence episode. Response (QIDS‐

SR‐16 score ≥ 50% of baseline) at week 8 was observed in 65.7% of the patients, while

49.6% of the patients achieved remission (QIDS‐SR‐16 score ≤ 5).

Conclusion Agomelatine was shown to be effective on anhedonia, depression, and anxiety in

subjects with major depression. The pragmatic design of the study reflects real‐world clinical

practice providing interesting insights into routine care management.

KEYWORDS

agomelatine, anhedonia, open‐label, real‐world

1 | INTRODUCTION

Depression is a major mood disorder with 12% prevalence over life-

time (Sadock & Sadock, 2009). The World Health Organization esti-

mated that depression makes a large contribution to the overall

burden of disease, being at third place worldwide and at first place in

middle‐ and high‐income countries. By the year 2030, depression is

estimated to be the first cause of disability‐adjusted life years among

the world’s population.

While various pharmacological treatment options are available,

there are still unsatisfied needs, including the lack of consistent evi-

dence of improvement in anhedonia, identified as a loss of interest

and lack of reactivity to pleasurable stimuli in daily life, being one of

the two core symptoms of depression (Treadway & Zald, 2011). Anhe-

donia has been considered crucial for the diagnosis of depression

wileyonlinelibrary.com/jo

(Klein, 1984; Schrader, 1997), and is a transnosographic condition

reported in several psychiatric disorders (Hatzigiakoumis, Martinotti,

Di Giannantonio, & Janiri, 2011; Millan, Fone, Steckler, & Horan,

2014; De Berardis et al., 2015; Di Nicola et al., 2013, Pettorruso

et al., 2014a), including alcohol, and substance abuse (Martinotti,

Cloninger, & Janiri, 2008) and neurological disorders (Pettorruso

et al., 2014b). In major depression, anhedonia persistence is associated

with the prediction of unsatisfactory outcomes in the treatment of

depression, as patients do not achieve appropriate clinical remission,

with functional and quality‐of‐life impairment (McMakin et al., 2012;

Vrieze et al., 2013).

Agomelatine is an antidepressant with an novel mode of action. It is

antagonist at 5‐HT2C receptors, and antagonist at MT1 and MT2 recep-

tors (Audinot et al., 2003, Millan et al., 2003, De Berardis et al., 2013b).

These receptors act in synergy increasing dopamine and norepinephrine

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.urnal/hup 1

2 GARGOLOFF ET AL.

neurotransmission (Millan et al., 2003; Chenu, El Mansari, & Blier, 2013),

and there is a potentiation of dopamine and norepinephrine release in

the prefrontal cortex. Agomelatine has shown antidepressant efficacy in

several randomized placebo‐controlled studies and in studies versus

active controls (see Taylor, Sparshatt, Varma, & Olofinjana, 2014 and

Khoo et al., 2015 for a review and network meta‐analyses). Its effects

have been shown in different psychopathological conditions, well

beyond the diagnosis of major depression (Fornaro et al., 2013; De

Berardis et al., 2013a; Guglielmo, Martinotti, Di Giannantonio, & Janiri,

2013; De Berardis et al., 2012). Agomelatine has showed good

tolerability profile including low sexual dysfunction (Kennedy, Rizvi,

Fulton, & Rasmussen, 2008) and lack of discontinuation syndrome

(Montgomery, Kennedy, Burrows, Lejoyeux, & Hindmarch, 2004).

Agomelatine not only reduces negative affects such as depressed

mood or anxiety but also has particularly clinical actions on improving

positive affect, namely, targeting the improvement of anhedonia,

emotional blunting, and daytime sleepiness among others, which

differentiates agomelatine from serotonergic antidepressants (Stahl,

2014). To date, there are only two published studies that have

described the efficacy of agomelatine in the treatment of anhedonia

among depressive patients in which specific rating scales have been

used to assess these symptoms (Di Giannantonio et al., 2011;

Martinotti et al., 2012). In the first, an open‐label 8‐week study, the

primary endpoints were the effect on depressive and anxiety

symptoms while the effect on anhedonia was a secondary endpoint.

In the second, an open‐label 8‐week study, the effects of agomelatine

on anhedonia were compared with venlafaxine XR and anhedonia was

evaluated as primary endpoint and significant difference between

groups was observed in favor of agomelatine.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of agomelatine on

anhedonia as primary endpoint in outpatients under treatment for

major depressive episode (MDE) under usual clinical practice condi-

tions, in a real‐world setting. Secondary endpoints were changes in

depression and anxiety in MDE patients.

2 | METHODS

This study was an open‐label, multicenter, 8‐week, phase IV trial of

agomelatine in outpatients with MDE.

All patients provided written informed consent prior to participa-

tion in the study, and the protocol was approved by a local ethic com-

mittee and conducted in accordance with the principles of good clinical

practice.

All planned procedures relating to this noninterventional/observa-

tional study were carried out only as part of the routine of diagnosis and

treatment of usual clinical practice. No intervention was undertaken

on or with the patient other than that related to usual clinical practice.

Forty‐six psychiatrists from the city of Buenos Aires, Argentina,

participated in this study.

Outpatients aged 25–65 years, diagnosed with MDE as defined by

the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edi-

tion, Text Revision, and treated with agomelatine were included in this

study. Diagnosis of major depressive disorder was confirmed by the

Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (Sheehan, Lecrubier, &

Sheehan, 1998). Only patients who provided written informed consent

were included, and each participant was assigned a number by which

he/she was identified to keep his or her privacy.

Study visit were scheduled for weeks 1, 4, and 8 after treatment

initiation. Only data collected in the respective windows intervals at

follow‐up visits (week 1 ± 3 days, week 4 ± 1 week, and week

8 ± 2 weeks) after treatment initiation were included.

Exclusion criteria were represented by hypersensitivity to

agomelatine or the excipients, hepatic failure (cirrhosis or active liver

disease), any kind of transaminase abnormalities, concomitant use of

potent CYP1A2 isoenzyme inhibitors (e.g., fluvoxamine, ciprofloxacin),

dementia, history of bipolar disorder, mania, or hypomania.

Agomelatine was administered orally as a 25‐mg tablet before

sleep. The dose could be increased at the discretion of the physician

to 50 mg after 2 weeks of treatment.

Anhedonia was evaluated by the Snaith–Hamilton Pleasure Scale

(SHAPS), the primary objective of this study (Snaith et al., 1995; Fresán

& Berlanga, 2013; Franken, Rassin, & Muris, 2007). It is a brief 14‐item

self‐report questionnaire designed to measure hedonic tone and its

absence, anhedonia.

Depression was assessed by The Quick Inventory of Depressive

Symptomatology 16‐item Self‐Report (QIDS‐SR‐16), a common self‐

reporting procedure used to establish inclusion criteria and to measure

changes to the medical treatment (Rush et al., 2003; Trivedi et al.,

2004). Response was defined as an improvement of ≥50% in QIDS‐

SR‐16 score from baseline, and remission was defined as a QIDS‐SR‐

16 score ≤ 5 at end point (Trivedi et al., 2006).

The Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7‐item scale (GAD‐7) is a self‐

reporting tool for the evaluation of anxiety disorders and to record

changes in anxiety severity (Spitzer, Kroenke, Williams, & Löwe,

2006; García‐Campayo et al., 2010).

The Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI‐S) and Improve-

ment (CGI‐I) were administered by the physician and constitute a gen-

eral measure of the patient’s psychopathological state before and after

treatment implementation (Guy, 1976).

Each physician managed his patients according to their usual clini-

cal practice and recorded the visit follow‐up by using the electronic

medical report form provided. Safety evaluations were performed by

recording spontaneously reported adverse events and measurement

of aspartate transaminase and alanine transaminase levels according

to recommended intervals at baseline and at week 1, 4, and 8 of

treatment.

Data was expressed as mean ± SD. Primary and secondary analysis

were performed on the intention‐to‐treat population, which was

defined as all patients who took at least one dose of agomelatine. Data

were analyzed for normal distribution using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov

test and one‐way analysis of variance for repeated measure (Friedman

test) using the last‐observation‐carried‐forward was performed. Corre-

lation was analyzed with Spearman correlation. The difference was

considered significant if p < 0.05.

3 | RESULTS

Two hundred fifty‐seven (257) patients were recruited for the study,

and data of 143 patients were included in the analysis (81 were

TABLE 1 Baseline clinical characteristics of patients (n = 143)

Age (years, range) 47.8 ± 11.3 (25–65)

Female (%) 64

Recurrent MDE (%) 54.5

Melancholic MDE (%) 88.8

Average length of current MDE (month) 8.9 ± 23.3

Concomitant treatment at baseline with
other antidepressant (%)

35.7

Concomitant treatment at baseline
(other psychotropic drug) (%)

74.8

Note. MDE = major depressive episode.

GARGOLOFF ET AL. 3

excluded due to unconfirmed start date of treatment and 33 because

all visits were outside the recommended intervals; Figure 1).

Sixteen patients (11.2%) dropped out of treatment: eight patients

were lost to follow up and eight subjects because of adverse events,

three due to lack of efficacy, two due to insomnia, one due to somno-

lence, one due to muscular pain, and one due to compulsions. The dose

of agomelatine was increased from 25 to 50 mg in two patients (1.4%).

The main characteristics of the study population are shown in Table 1.

A significant reduction in the severity of anhedonia (SHAPS total

score) was observed (Figure 2), from 8.5 points at baseline to 4.1 at

week 8 (p < 0.001). This improvement was evident from the first week

(p < 0.01).

A significant decrease in scores on the severity of depression

(QIDS‐SR‐16) from 15.5 points at baseline to 6.9 at week

8 (p < 0.001) and anxiety (GAD‐7) from 14.0 points at baseline to 7.3

at week 8 (p < 0.001) was found (Figure 2).

The CGI‐I score improved from 2.9 in the first week to 2.0 at week

8. The CGI‐S score improved from 4.5 at baseline to 3.3 at week 8 with

a statistically significant difference found from the first week of

treatment.

In order to analyze the relation between percentages of changes in

SHAPS, QIDS‐SR‐16, and GAD‐7 scores at week 8 with agomelatine

treatment, Spearman correlation were carried out between these

parameters and a significant positive correlation was found in all cases

(SHAPS versus QIDS‐SR‐16:r = 0.5532, p < 0.0001; SHAPS versus

GAD‐7:r = 0.5383, p < 0.0001; QIDS‐SR‐16 versus GAD‐7:

r = 0.6513, p < 0.0001).

The proportion of patients achieving the given criteria for

response (QIDS‐SR‐16 score ≥ 50% of baseline) and remission

(QIDS‐SR‐16 score ≤ 5) is shown in Figure 3. Response at week

8 was observed in 65.7% of the patients while 49.6% of the patients

achieved remission.

Change in the QIDS‐SR‐16 was analysed excluding sleep items. A

significant improvement from the first week was also observed in this

analysis (p < 0.001), demonstrating that the decrease of the total score

was not driven by the decrease of the sleep items.

Data were analyzed in the subgroup of patients with recurrence

(n = 78) or first MDE episode (n = 65). Agomelatine showed a similar

and statistically significant (p < 0.05) improvement in SHAPS after

4 weeks of treatment. Improvements in QIDS‐SR‐16 and GAD‐7 were

FIGURE 1 Diagram of subject recruited and included

FIGURE 2 Mean change of SHAPS, QIDS‐SR‐16, and GAD‐7
scores. Results are expressed as mean ± SD, analysis of variance for
repeated measure (LOCF), p < 0.05. * indicates significant differences
with baseline

FIGURE 3 Response and remission rate

4 GARGOLOFF ET AL.

also similar between both groups and were statistically significant from

the second week of treatment (Table 2).

When considering the results obtained in monotherapy with

agomelatine or with concomitant use of other antidepressants

(Table 3), a statistically significant (p < 0.05) SHAPS improvement

was observed from the first week in patients treated with agomelatine

only (n = 92), while in those with concomitant use of other antidepres-

sant (n = 51) the significant improvement was observed from week 4

(p < 0.05). An improvement in QIDS‐SR‐16, GAD‐7, and CGI was also

observed in both groups from the first week of treatment.

The improvements in scores of all the scales evaluated (SHAPS,

QIDS‐SR‐16, GAD‐7, CGI‐S, CGI‐I) were observed both in patients

with moderate anxiety (GAD‐7 ≥ 10, n = 116) and in patients with

severe anxiety (GAD‐7 ≥ 15, n = 69) (data not shown).

Taking into account the whole population (n = 257), 27 adverse

drug reactions (ADR) were reported (10.5%). Seventeen corresponded

to nonserious ADR: headache (n = 4), insomnia (n = 3), nausea (n = 2),

somnolence (n = 2), epigastralgia (n = 2); two of them were upgraded

to serious ADR by the sponsor: dizziness and hypersomnia. Six adverse

events (AE) were informed, and two of them corresponded to an event

included in the risk management plan (transitory increase of liver

enzymes‐ < 1.5 ULN). However, both of them were not considered

as connected to use of agomelatine.

Three cases of lack of efficacy were reported. One pregnancy was

reported (with normal, spontaneous delivery, and no abnormalities

TABLE 2 Assessment in MDE patients with first MDE and with recurrent

First MDE

Baseline Week 1 Week 4 Wee

SHAPS 9.9 ± 3.9 8.2 ± 4.4 6.0 ± 5.0* 4.1 ±

QIDS‐SR‐16 15.0 ± 5.1 11.9 ± 6.4* 8.8 ± 7.1* 6.1 ±

GAD‐7 13.0 ± 4.8 10.8 ± 4.8* 8.0 ± 5.2* 6.2 ±

CGI‐S 4.5 ± 0.7 4.2 ± 0.9 3.8 ± 1.1* 3.5 ±

CGI‐I — 2.8 ± 0.8 2.5 ± 1.0 2.0 ±

Note. CGI‐I = Clinical Global Impression of Improvement; CGI‐S = Clinical Global
MDE = major depressive episode; QIDS‐SR‐16 = Quick Inventory of Depressive
Scale.

Results are expressed as mean ± SD, analysis of variance for repeated measure

*Significant differences with baseline.

reported in the child). Two cases of elevation of liver enzimes (GGT)

were reported but both of them were not considered as AE connected

to use of agomelatine.

Among the 27 ADR, agomelatine was definitively discontinued in

six cases, the dose was reduced in four subjects, reintroduced in one

patient (in which the drug was interrupted by patient’s decision), and

maintained with no change in 16 cases. There were no clinically signif-

icant changes in body weight, blood pressure, or heart rate.

4 | DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, this is the first study in Argentina evaluating anhe-

donia in depression and the effect of an antidepressant treatment as

the primary endpoint. The main finding of this real‐world, observa-

tional, multicenter 8‐week study was that agomelatine produced, as

early as the first week following the treatment initiation, a significant

improvement in anhedonia in a population of depressed patients. This

positive effect on anhedonia is consistent with previous reports (Di

Giannantonio et al., 2011; Martinotti et al., 2012) despite the higher

baseline SHAPS score in our study, which reflects a more severe

anhedonic population.

Agomelatine improved depressive symptoms measured by the

QIDS‐16 SR and anxiety symptoms as seen with the GAD‐7, in both

cases statistically significant since the first week. The beneficial effects

in depression and anxiety symptoms are also in line with previous stud-

ies (Stein, Picarel‐Blanchot, & Kennedy, 2013, Taylor et al., 2014; De

Berardis et al., 2013b; Di Giannantonio and Martinotti, 2012), and pos-

itive significant correlations between SHAPS, QIDS‐SR‐16, and GAD‐7

were found in the total population. However, when the patients in

monotherapy were evaluated, SHAPS improved faster than depression

or anxiety scales in comparison to patients with concomitant treat-

ments. Drug–drug interaction appears unlikely to have happened

because there are no pharmacodynamic interactions known between

agomelatine and other antidepressive agents, and there were no anti-

depressants inhibitors of CYP 1A2 in the market in Argentina at the

time the study was performed. A possible explanation lies in the phar-

macology of the antidepressants used in the study: We hypothesize

that the effect of agomelatine in anhedonia is due to its mode of

action, by releasing noradrenaline and dopamine in specifically limbic

MDE

Recurrent MDE

k 8 Baseline Week 1 Week 4 Week 8

4.9* 7.4 ± 4.5 6.2 ± 4.5 6.2 ± 3.8* 4.1 ± 4.3*

6.2* 16.0 ± 4.2 11.0 ± 5.8* 8.0 ± 5.9* 6.9 ± 5.5*

4.9* 14.7 ± 4.1 11.3 ± 4.6* 8.6 ± 5.1* 8.3 ± 5.3*

1.4* 4.4 ± 0.7 3.9 ± 0.9* 3.3 ± 1.1* 3.0 ± 1.2*

1.0 — 2.9 ± 0.9 2.3 ± 1.0 2.0 ± 1.4

Impression of Severity; GAD‐7 = Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7‐item scale;
Symptomatology 16‐item Self‐Report; SHAPS = Snaith–Hamilton Pleasure

(LOCF), p < 0.05.

TABLE 3 Assessment in MDE patients with or without concomitant use of other antidepressants.

Without concomitant use of other ATD With concomitant use of other ATD

Baseline Week 1 Week 4 Week 8 Baseline Week 1 Week 4 Week 8

SHAPS 8.5 ± 4.5 6.7 ± 4.5* 4.6 ± 4.5* 3.7 ± 4.5* 8.6 ± 4.4 7.8 ± 4.6 5.6 ± 4.5* 4.8 ± 4.7*

QIDS‐SR‐16 14.8 ± 4.5 10.3 ± 5.7* 7.4 ± 5.8* 5.6 ± 5.1* 16.8 ± 4.7 13.4 ± 6.3* 10.1 ± 7.2* 8.2 ± 6.7*

GAD‐7 13.6 ± 4.8 10.7 ± 4.7* 8.3 ± 5.1* 7.1 ± 5.2* 14.6 ± 3.9 11.8 ± 4.6* 8.4 ± 5.3* 7.7 ± 5.5*

CGI‐S 4.4 ± 0.7 4.0 ± 0.8* 3.6 ± 1.0* 3.3 ± 1.3* 4.5 ± 0.7 4.1 ± 1.0 3.6 ± 1.3* 3.2 ± 1.3*

CGI‐I — 2.8 ± 0.7 2.4 ± 0.9 1.9 ± 1.1 — 2.9 ± 1.0 2.4 ± 1.2 2.1 ± 1.4

Note. ATD = antidepressant; CGI‐I = Clinical Global Impression of Improvement; CGI‐S = Clinical Global Impression of Severity; GAD‐7 = Generalized Anx-
iety Disorder 7‐item scale; MDE = major depressive episode; QIDS‐SR‐16 = Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology 16‐item Self‐Report;
SHAPS = Snaith–Hamilton Pleasure Scale.

Results are expressed as mean ± SD, analysis of variance for repeated measure (LOCF), p < 0.05.

*Significant differences with baseline.

GARGOLOFF ET AL. 5

areas, namely, prefrontal cortex without influence in extracellular sero-

tonin levels (Millan et al 2003). Enhancement of dopaminergic and nor-

adrenergic neurotransmission has been related to the improvement of

interest and pleasure (Nutt et al., 2006), while SSRIs increasing the

extracellular serotonin levels may dampen the activity of NA and DA

neurons (Blier & Briley, 2011). In this study, most of the coadministra-

tions occurred with SSRIs and they may dampen the effect of

agomelatine when administered concomitantly to depressed patients.

This peculiar effect of agomelatine on anhedonia may be determined

by an interaction with neurotrophic factors, a hypothesis recently pro-

posed in other studies (Martinotti, Orsolini, et al., 2016a).

These results are consistent with a significant number of other tri-

als, but with the relevant parameter of the real‐life setting. Daily clini-

cal practice requires a complex interplay between experience and

judgment and must draw on data not only from classical randomized

controlled trials but also from pragmatically designed studies that bet-

ter reflect real‐life clinical practice, as the case of this study run by 46

psychiatrists from the city of Buenos Aires. Studies designed to reflect

a more naturalistic, real‐life management approach can provide inter-

esting insights into the differences between randomized clinical trials

management and routine care management, and the potential implica-

tions of ecology of care on treatment outcomes.

An interesting finding is the significant clinical improvements

detected in anhedonia, depression, and anxiety symptoms observed

both in first episode as in patients with a story of multiple episodes.

This data show and confirm how agomelatine effect is independent

from the presence of subjects in a drug‐naive condition, and may

represent a good possibility also in patients with a long psychiatric

history.

In our study, when the items of the QIDS‐SR‐16 were analyzed

separately, an improvement from the first week was still observed

despite of excluding the sleep, suggesting that the score of the QIDS

was not driven by the score of the sleep items. In fact, naturalistic

studies have revealed that the relief of sleep complains with

agomelatine had a very low predictive value for treatment response

(Gorwood et al., 2013).

The results of agomelatine on anhedonia from this study in com-

parison to those from large clinical trials in major depressive disorder

should be interpreted with caution, where anhedonia was considered

only as one of the many depressive symptoms and precisely it was

not included as primary or secondary study endpoint. From the mode

of action of agomelatine, it could be expected that its effect on anhe-

donia is specific and not due to the remission in depression because

improvement in anhedonia appears earlier than the efficacy on depres-

sion scales in patients treated with monotherapy with agomelatine.

These results confirm those obtained in a previous pilot randomized

study versus venlafaxine, where both products had similar efficacy in

the decrease of the Hamilton Depression rating scale (HAMD) and

Hamilton Anxiety rating scale (HAMA) scores over the 8 weeks of

treatment while agomelatine showed a significant greater efficacy than

venlafaxine from the first week of treatment in anhedonia measured

by the SHAPS scale (Martinotti et al., 2012).

In contrast, and in line to the mode of action of SSRI, a study with

sertraline administered to depressed patients showed that depression

and anxiety responded earlier to the antidepressant than the improve-

ment of anhedonia (Boyer, Tassin, Falissart, & Troy, 2000).

The absence of a placebo group, the open design, and the exclusive

use of self‐report scales are limitations of the study. However, a high

number of patients (n = 143) were enrolled and considered for the anal-

ysis, with consistent results compared with previous studies (n = 30 in

each) (Di Giannantonio et al., 2011; Martinotti et al., 2012). Although

there was a significant number of patients that could not be included in

the analysis for unconfirmed start date of treatment (n = 81), we observed

that this group had similar response compared to included patients in all

parameters considered in the study. On the other hand, observational

real‐world studies include more heterogeneous populations with a

variety of medical conditions and interventions, as is the case of this

study, which could reflect more closely the daily clinical practice.

In conclusion, this real‐world study confirms the effectiveness of

agomelatine in the improvement of anhedonia in a cohort of depressed

patients in Argentina and supports the data that demonstrated the effi-

cacy of agomelatine in depression and in anxiety within depression. The

efficacy of available antidepressants in anhedonia has been poorly eval-

uated in the past, even though anhedonia is considered, together with

depressed mood, as one of the two symptoms of depression essentials

for the diagnosis of the disease (DSM IV, 5). Some psychotropic drugs,

also outside the class of antidepressants, have some good potentiality

for this core dimension (Jaehne, Corrigan, Toben, Jawahar, & Baune,

2015; Martinotti, Pettorruso, et al., 2016b; Lally et al., 2015), but data

are still insufficient to draw any conclusion. Even if the results of

6 GARGOLOFF ET AL.

agomelatine in this important symptom deserve to be confirmed in larger

real‐life studies, they offer a very important property to this novel anti-

depressant that can have an impact in the management of depressed

patients especially while considering quality of life and remission.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors have declared no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES

Audinot, V., Mailliet, F., Lahaye‐Brasseur, C., Bonnaud, A., Le Gall, A.,
Amossé, C., … Boutin, J. A. (2003). New selective ligands of human
cloned melatonin MT(1) and MT(2) receptors. Naunyn‐Schmiedeberg’s
Archives of Pharmacology, 367(6), 553–561.

Blier, P., & Briley, M. (2011). The noradrenergic symptom cluster: Clinical
expression and neuropharmacol. Neuropsychiatric Dis Treat, 7(Supp1),
15–20.

Boyer, P., Tassin, J. P., Falissart, B., & Troy, S. (2000). Sequential improvement
of anxiety, depression and anhedonia with sertraline treatment in patients
with major depression. J Clin Pharmacy Therapeutics, 25, 363–371.

Chenu, F., El Mansari, M., & Blier, P. (2013). Electrophysiological effects of
repeated administration of agomelatine on the dopamine, norepineph-
rine and serotonin systems in the rat brain. Neuropsychopharmacology,
38, 275–284.

De Berardis, D., Serroni, N., Marini, S., Moschetta, F. S., Martinotti, G., & Di
Giannantonio, M. (2012). Agomelatine for the treatment of
posttraumatic stress disorder: A case report. Annals of Clinical Psychia-
try, Aug24(3), 241–242.

De Berardis, D., Conti, C. M., Marini, S., Ferri, F., Iasevoli, F., Valchera, A., …
Di Giannantonio, M. (2013a). Is there a role for agomelatine in the treat-
ment of anxiety disorders? A review of published data. International
Journal of Immunopathology and Pharmacology, Apr‐Jun26(2), 299–304.

De Berardis, D., Marini, S., Fornaro, M., Srinivasan, V., Iasevoli, F.,
Tomasetti, C., … Di Giannantonio, M. (2013b). The melatonergic system
in mood and anxiety disorders and the role of agomelatine: Implications
for clinical practice. Int J Molecular Sciences, 14(6), 12458–12483.

De Berardis, D., Fornaro, M., Serroni, N., Campanella, D., Rapini, … Di
Giannantonio, M. (2015). Agomelatine beyond borders: Current
evidences of its efficacy in disorders other than major depression. Int
J Molecular Sciences, 16(1), 1111–1130.

Di Giannantonio, M., Di Iorio, G., Guglielmo, R., De Berardis, D., Conti, C.
M., Acciavatti, T., … Martinotti, G. (2011). Major depressive disorder,
anhedonia and agomelatine: An open‐label study. Journal of Biological
Regulators and Homeostatic Agents, 25(1), 109–114.

Di Giannantonio, M., Martinotti, G. (2012). Anhedonia and major depression:
the role of agomelatine. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol, 22(3), S505–S510.

Di Nicola, M., De Risio, L., Battaglia, C., Camardese, G., Tedeschi, D., Mazza,
M., … Janiri, L. (2013). Reduced hedonic capacity in euthymic bipolar
subjects: A trait‐like feature? J Affective Disorder, 147(1–3), 446–450.

Fornaro, M., McCarthy, M. J., De Berardis, D., De Pasquale, C., Tabaton, M.,
Martino, M., … Fornaro, P. (2013). Adjunctive agomelatine therapy in
the treatment of acute bipolar II depression: A preliminary open label
study. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 9, 243–251.

Franken, I. H., Rassin, E., & Muris, P. (2007). The assessment of anhedonia
in clinical and non‐clinical populations: Further validation of the Snaith‐
Hamilton Pleasure Scale (SHAPS. Journal of Affective Disorders, 99(1–3),
83–89.

Fresán, A., & Berlanga, C. (2013). Translation into Spanish and validation of
the Snaith‐Hamilton Pleasure Scale (SHAPS) for anhedonia. Actas
Españolas de Psiquiatría, 41(4), 227–231.

García‐Campayo, J., Zamorano, E., Ruiz, M. A., Pardo, A., Pérez‐Páramo, M.,
López‐Gómez, V., … Rejas, J. (2010). Cultural adaptation into Spanish of
the generalized anxiety disorder‐7 (GAD‐7) scale as a screening tool.
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 8, 8.

Gorwood, P., Bayle, F., Vaiva, G., Courtet, P., Corruble, E., & Llorca, P. M.
(2013). Is it worth assessing progress as early as week 2 to adapt
antidepressive treatment strategy? Results from a study with
agomelatine and a global meta‐analysis. European Psychiatry, 28,
362–371.

Guglielmo, R., Martinotti, G., Di Giannantonio, M., & Janiri, L. (2013). A pos-
sible new option for migraine management: Agomelatine. Clinical
Neuropharmacology, Mar‐Apr36(2), 65–67.

Guy, W. (1976). The Clinical Global Impression Scale. In: ECDEU Assessment
Manual for Psychopharmacology‐Revised. ( pp. 218–222). US Dept. of
Health, Education and Welfare, ADAMHA, MIMH Psychopharmacol-
ogy Research Branch: Rockville, MD.

Hatzigiakoumis, D. S., Martinotti, G., Di Giannantonio, M. D., & Janiri, L.
(2011). Anhedonia and substance dependence: Clinical correlates and
treatment options. Front Psychiatry, 2, 10.

Jaehne, E. J., Corrigan, F., Toben, C., Jawahar, M. C., & Baune, B. T. (2015).
The effect of the antipsychotic drug quetiapine and its metabolite
norquetiapine on acute inflammation, memory and anhedonia. Pharma-
cology Biochemical Behaviors, Aug135, 136–144.

Kennedy, S. H., Rizvi, S., Fulton, K., & Rasmussen, . J. A. (2008). double‐blind
comparison of sexual functioning, antidepressant efficacy, and tolera-
bility between agomelatine and venlafaxine XR. Journal Clinical
Psychopharmacology, 28(3), 329–333.

Khoo, A. L., Zhoux, H. J., Teng, M., Lin, L., Zhao, Y. J., Soh, L. B., … Gwee, K.
P. (2015). Network metaanalysis and cost effectiveness analysis of new
generation antidepressants. CNS Drugs. doi:10.1007/s40263-015-
0267-6.

Klein, D. (1984). Depression and anhedonia. In C. Clark, & J. Fawcett (Eds.),
Anhedonia and Affect Deficit States. (pp. 1–14). New York: PMA
Publishing.

Lally, N., Nugent, A. C., Luckenbaugh, D. A., Niciu, M. J., Roiser, J. P., &
Zarate, C. A.,. J. (2015). Neural correlates of change in major depressive
disorder anhedonia following open‐label ketamine. Journal Psychophar-
macology, 29(5), 596–607.

Martinotti, G., Cloninger, C. R., & Janiri, L. (2008). Temperament and char-
acter inventory dimensions and anhedonia in detoxified substance‐
dependent subjects. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse,
34(2), 177–183.

Martinotti, G., Sepede, G., Gambi, F., Di Iorio, G., De Berardis, D., Di Nicola,
M., … Di Giannantonio, M. (2012). Agomelatine versus venlafaxine XR
in the treatment of anhedonia in major depressive disorder: A pilot
study. Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology, 32(4), 487–491.

Martinotti, G., Orsolini, L., Fornaro, M., Vecchiottim, R., De Berardis, D.,
Iasevoli, F., … di Giannantonio, M. (2016a). Aripiprazole for relapse
prevention and craving in alcohol use disorder: current evidence and
future perspectives. Expert Opinion on Investigational Drugs, Jun25(6),
719–728.

Martinotti, G., Pettorruso, M., De Berardis, D., Varasano, P. A., Lucidi
Pressanti, G., De Remigis, V., … Di Giannantonio, M. (2016b).
Agomelatine increases BDNF serum levels in depressed patients in cor-
relation with the improvement of depressive symptoms. The
International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology, Apr 2919(5).

McMakin, D. L., Olino, T. M., Porta, G., Dietz, L. J., Emslie, G., Clarke, G., …
Brent, D. A. (2012). Anhedonia predicts poorer recovery among youth
with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor treatment‐resistant depres-
sion. Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescents Psychiatry,
51(4), 404–411.

Millan, M. J., Gobert, A., Lejeune, F., Dekeyne, A., Newman‐Tancredi, A.,
Pasteau, V., … Cussac, D. (2003). The novel melatonin agonist
agomelatine (S20098) is an antagonist at 5‐hydroxytryptamine 2C
receptors, blockade of which enhances the activity of frontocortical
dopaminergic and adrenergic pathways. The Journal of Pharmacology
and Experimental Therapeutics, 306, 954–964.

Millan, M. J., Fone, K., Steckler, T., & Horan, W. P. (2014). Negative symp-
toms of schizophrenia: Clinical characteristics, pathophysiological

GARGOLOFF ET AL. 7

substrates, experimental models and prospects for improved treatment.
European Neuropsychopharmacology, 24(5), 645–692.

Montgomery, S. A., Kennedy, S. H., Burrows, G. D., Lejoyeux, M., &
Hindmarch, I. (2004). Absence of discontinuation symptoms with
agomelatine and occurrence of discontinuation symptoms with paroxe-
tine: A randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled discontinuation
study. IntClinPsychopharmacol, 19, 271–280.

Nutt, D., Demyttenaere, K., Janka, Z., Aarre, T., Bourin, M., Canonico, P. L.,
… Stahl, S. (2006). The other face of depression, reduced positive affect:
The role of cathecolamines in causation and cure. Journal of
Psychopharmacology.

Pettorruso, M., De Risio, L., Di Nicola, M., Martinotti, G., Conte, G., & Janiri,
L. (2014a). Allostasis as a conceptual framework linking bipolar disorder
and addiction. Frontiers in Psychiatry, Dec 35, 173.

Pettorruso, M., Martinotti, G., Fasano, A., Loria, G., Di Nicola, M., De Risio,
L., … Bentivoglio, A. R. (2014b). Anhedonia in Parkinson’s disease
patients with and without pathological gambling: A case–control study.
Psychiatry Research, Feb 28215(2), 448–452.

Rush, A. J., Trivedi, M. H., Ibrahim, H. M., Carmody, T. J., Arnow, B., Klein, D.
N., … Keller, M. B. (2003). The 16‐Item Quick Inventory of Depressive
Symptomatology (QIDS), clinician rating (QIDS‐C), and self‐report
(QIDS‐SR): A psychometric evaluation in patients with chronic major
depression. Biological Psychiatry, 54(5), 573–583.

Sadock, B. J., & Sadock, V. A. (Eds) (2009). Kaplan and Sadock’s Comprehen-
sive Textbook of Psychiatry (9th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams &
Wilkins.

Schrader, G. D. (1997). Does anhedonia correlate with depression severity
in chronic depression? Comprehensive Psychiatry, 38, 260–263.

Sheehan, D. V., Lecrubier, Y., & Sheehan, K. H. (1998). The Mini‐Interna-
tional Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI): The development and
validation of a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview for DSM‐IV
and ICD‐10. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 59(Suppl 20), 22–33.

Snaith, R. P., Hamilton, M., Morley, S., Humayan, A., Hargreaves, D., &
Trigwell, P. A. (1995). Scale for the assessment of hedonic tone the
Snaith‐Hamilton Pleasure Scale. The British Journal of Psychiatry,
167(1), 99–103.

Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J. B., & Löwe, B. (2006). A brief measure
for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD‐7. Archives of Inter-
nal Medicine, 166(10), 1092–1097.

Stahl, S. M. (2014). Mechanism of action of agomelatine: A novel antide-
pressant exploiting synergy between monoaminergic and
melatonergic properties. CNS Spectrums, 19(3), 207–212.

Stein, D. J., Picarel‐Blanchot, F., & Kennedy, S. H. (2013). Efficacy of the
novel antidepressant agomelatine on anxiety symptoms in major depres-
sion. Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental, 28, 151–159.

Taylor, D., Sparshatt, A., Varma, S., & Olofinjana, O. (2014). Antidepressant
efficacy of agomelatine: Metaanalysis of published and unpublished
studies. BMJ, 348, .g1888doi: 10.1136/bmj.g18881

Treadway, M. T., & Zald, D. H. (2011). Reconsidering anhedonia in depres-
sion: Lessons from translational neuroscience. Neuroscience and
Biobehavioral Reviews, Jan35(3), 537–555.

Trivedi, M. H., Rush, A. J., Ibrahim, H. M., Carmody, T. J., Biggs, M. M.,
Suppes, T., … Kashner, T. M. (2004). The Inventory of Depressive Symp-
tomatology, Clinician Rating (IDS‐C) and Self‐Report (IDS‐SR), and the
Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, Clinician Rating
(QIDS‐C) and Self‐Report (QIDS‐SR) in public sector patients with
mood disorders: A psychometric evaluation. Psychological Medicine,
34(1), 73–82.

Trivedi, M. H., Rush, A. J., Wisniewski, S. R., Nierenberg, A. A., Warden, D.,
Ritz, L., … Fava, M. (2006). STAR*D Study Team. Evaluation of out-
comes with citalopram for depression using measurement‐based care
in STAR*D: Implications for clinical practice. The American Journal of
Psychiatry, 163(1), 28–40.

Vrieze, E., Pizzagalli, D. A., Demyttenaere, K., Hompes, T., Sienaert, P., de
Boer, P., … Claes, S. (2013). Reduced reward learning predicts outcome
in major depressive disorder. Biological Psychiatry, 73(7), 639–645.

World Health Organization. The global burden of disease: 2004 update.
Available from: http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_dis-
ease/GBD_report_2004update_full.pdf.[Accessed July 25, 2014].

How to cite this article: Gargoloff, P. D., Corral, R., Herbst, L.,

Marquez, M., Martinotti, G., and Gargoloff, P. R. (2016), Effec-

tiveness of agomelatine on anhedonia in depressed patient: an

outpatient, open‐label, real‐world study, Hum Psychopharmacol

Clin Exp, doi: 10.1002/hup.2557

Writerbay.net

Everyone needs a little help with academic work from time to time. Hire the best essay writing professionals working for us today!

Get a 15% discount for your first order


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper