4.1 Article

A Brief History of the Development of Antidepressant Drugs: From Monoamines to Glutamate

期刊

出版社

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/a0038550

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health [T32DA07268]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a chronic, recurring, and debilitating mental illness that is the most common mood disorder in the United States. It has been almost 50 years since the monoamine hypothesis of depression was articulated, and just over 50 years since the first pharmacological treatment for MDD was discovered. Several monoamine-based pharmacological drug classes have been developed and approved for the treatment of MDD; however, remission rates are low (often less than 60%) and there is a delayed onset before remission of depressive symptoms is achieved. As a result of a proof-ofconcept study in 2000 with the noncompetitive NMDA antagonist ketamine, a number of studies have examined the glutamatergic systems as viable targets for the treatment of MDD. This review will provide a brief history on the development of clinically available antidepressant drugs, and then review the possible role of glutamatergic systems in the pathophysiology of MDD. Specifically, the glutamatergic review will focus on the N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor and the efficacy of drugs that target the NMDA receptor for the treatment of MDD. The noncompetitive NMDA receptor antagonist ketamine, which has consistently produced rapid and sustained antidepressant effects in MDD patients in a number of clinical studies, has shown the most promise as a novel glutamatergic-based treatment for MDD. However, compounds that target other glutamatergic mechanisms, such as GLYX-13 (a glycine-site partial agonist at NMDA receptors) appear promising in early clinical trials. Thus, the clinical findings to date are encouraging and support the continued search for and the development of novel compounds that target glutamatergic mechanisms.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据