4.3 Article

Evaluation of antidepressant properties of the p38 MAP kinase inhibitor losmapimod (GW856553) in Major Depressive Disorder: Results from two randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicentre studies using a Bayesian approach

Journal

JOURNAL OF PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
Volume 28, Issue 6, Pages 570-581

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0269881114529377

Keywords

Cytokines; major depressive disorder; p38 MAPK

Funding

  1. GlaxoSmithKline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Pro-inflammatory cytokines (PICs) may play important pathophysiological roles in some forms of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). The p38 MAPK inhibitor losmapimod (GW856553) attenuates the pro-inflammatory response in humans by reducing PIC production. Losmapimod (7.5 mg BD) was administered for 6 weeks in two randomised, placebo-controlled trials in subjects with MDD enriched with symptoms of loss of energy/interest and psychomotor retardation (Studies 574 and 009). Primary efficacy endpoints were the Bech 6-item depression subscale of the HAMD-17 (the 'Bech,') for Study 009; and the Bech, Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Clinician Rated (IDS-C), HAMD-17, and Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (self-rated) (QIDS-SR) for Study 574. Key cytokine biomarker levels were also measured. Study 574 (n=24) was terminated prematurely in light of emerging data from an internal study in rheumatoid arthritis. Efficacy results available at termination favoured losmapimod (Bech, 6 weeks: endpoint drug vs. placebo difference =-4.10; 95% CI, -7.36, -0.83; p=0.017). A subsequent study, Study 009 (n=128), designed using a Bayesian approach based on a prior derived from Study 574, showed no advantage for losmapimod (Bech, 6 weeks: endpoint drug vs. placebo difference =1.11; 95% credible interval, -0.22, 2.50). Biomarker data showed no significant changes. In conclusion 7.5 mg BID losmapimod was not effective in MDD.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available