Abstract
Background
Cilostazol, a phosphodiesterase-3 inhibitor, has been reported to improve depressive-like behavior in experimental studies of depression. We investigated the safety and efficacy of cilostazol combination therapy with sertraline in treating patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) in a 6-week, parallel, randomized controlled trial.
Method
Among patients referred to the outpatient clinic of a tertiary hospital, those with a diagnosis of MDD with moderate to severe severity (a score of >19 on the Hamilton depression rating scale (HAM-D)) were enrolled. A total of 54 MDD patients aged 18–65 years were randomly assigned to either the cilostazol (100 mg daily) or the placebo group. Both groups received sertraline 100 mg per day similarly. Changes in HAM-D at weeks 2, 4, and 6 were the primary outcome. Participants and outcome assessors were blinded.
Results
At week 6, patients in the cilostazol group had significantly lower HAM-D score (p value= 0.015). General linear model repeated-measure analysis showed significant effect for treatment in improving MDD severity (p value <0.001). The remission rate at the study endpoint and number of responders at week 4 were significantly higher in the cilostazol group (p value= 0.047, p value= 0.032, respectively). The cilostazol group demonstrated a significantly shorter time to response. No significant difference was observed in treatment response at the study endpoint, and there were no serious adverse effects.
Conclusion
Our study supports safety and efficacy of cilostazol in treating MDD patients.
Trial registration
This trial was registered at the Iranian registry of clinical trials (IRCT: www.irct.ir; registration number: IRCT20090117001556N130)
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Major depressive disorder (MDD), a major cause of disability, is one of the most common psychiatric disorders with a global prevalence of approximately 5% (Ferrari et al. 2013; Haapakoski et al. 2015). The expanding therapeutic armamentarium for MDD includes pharmacological and non-pharmacological options. However, the majority of the non-pharmacological approaches, except for cognitive behavioral therapy, are not evidence-based (Gartlehner et al. 2017). Tricyclic antidepressants, monoamine oxidase inhibitors, and serotonin reuptake inhibitors, such as sertraline, are the most commonly prescribed medications (Smit et al. 2016). Despite substantial advances in the treatment of MDD, major challenges are still unsolved. A significant proportion of the patients (30–40%) do not respond to initial treatment (Sackeim 2001), and almost one-fifth show poor adherence to treatment due to adverse effects (Brunoni et al. 2009). The burden of MDD and the remaining challenges in achieving optimal outcomes highlight the need for investigation of other alternative therapies.
Phosphodiesterase (PDE) inhibitors have shown positive effects in treating a wide range of psychiatric and neurodevelopmental disorders. PDE enzymes play an essential role in cell function adjustments via regulating intracellular levels of second messenger cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) and cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP) by hydrolyzing cyclic nucleotides (Bobon et al.; Delhaye and Bardoni 2021). Therefore, PDEs can play a critical role in synaptic plasticity and regulation of neuronal pathways, a potential role in learning, mood adjustment, and memory functions (Hebb and Robertson 2007; Houslay et al. 2007; Houslay et al. 2005; O'Donnell and Zhang 2004). Several PDEs, such as PDE3, are expressed in the brain with altered expression in MDD (Nandhakumar et al. 2010). The potential therapeutic applications of PDE inhibitors have been extensively explored in various neurodevelopmental disorders, and they have shown promising results in the management of mood disorders, including MDD (Itoh et al. 2004; Zhang et al. 2002), dementia (Campbell and Edwards 2006), psychosis (Akhondzadeh et al. 2011; Maxwell et al. 2004; Menniti et al. 2007), and autism spectrum disorder.
Cilostazol, primarily used in secondary prevention of ischemic stroke, is a reversible, selective PDE3 inhibitor that targets platelets and vascular smooth muscle cells (Uchiyama et al. 2009). Monotherapy with cilostazol has alleviated disease severity in chronic schizophrenia (Rezaei et al. 2017) and improved cognitive abilities (Taguchi et al. 2013). Cilostazol has shown positive results in ameliorating depressive-like behavior in animal models when administered orally (Abuelezz and Hendawy 2018; Kim et al. 2016b) or intraperitoneally (Patel et al. 2012b; Yoneyama et al. 2015). Recently, a study conducted by Abdallah et al. investigated to efficacy and safety profile of cilostazol administered in MDD patients (Abdallah et al. 2021). Cilostazol also improved geriatric depression scale scores in patients with Alzheimer’s disease (Hishikawa et al. 2017) in addition to mitigating cognitive deficits. However, to the best of our knowledge, no clinical trial has been conducted so far to assess the effects of cilostazol in the management of MDD.
Given the corroborative evidence, we hypothesized that cilostazol adjuvant therapy might improve severity of MDD. In this 6-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, we investigated the effects of cilostazol as adjuvant therapy with sertraline in the treatment of MDD.
Materials and methods
Trial design and setting
A 6-week, two-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group clinical trial was performed on the efficacy of cilostazol compared to placebo as adjuvant therapy in improving symptoms of MDD at the outpatient clinic of Roozbeh Psychiatric Hospital (Tehran University of Medical Sciences) and Tehran Psychiatric Institute (Iran University of Medical Sciences) between July 2020 and July 2021. The trial was registered at the Iranian registry of clinical trials (IRCT: www.irct.ir; registration No.: IRCT20090117001556N130). The protocol was in concordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (Association 2013) and its subsequent revisions. The Tehran University of Medical Sciences institutional review board approved the protocol (approval No. IR.TUMS.VCR.REC.1398.1005). All participants in the present trial were informed that they were free to leave the trial at any time without any consequences on their therapy process. Written informed consent was obtained from all enrolled patients.
Participants
Enrolled participants were male and female outpatients aged between 18 and 65 years. Patients were included if (1) they were diagnosed with MDD according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5) (American Psychiatric Association 1980) and had a minimum score of 19 on the 17-item Hamilton rating scale for depression (HAM-D). Exclusion criteria were as follows: receiving any antidepressant drug during the previous month, receiving electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) during the past 2 months, presence of psychosis or diagnosis of other prominent mental disorders (e.g., bipolar I or II disorders, anxiety disorder, personality disorder, eating disorder), suicidal ideation (score > 2 on the suicide item of the HAM-D), depression due to other diseases, alcohol or substance (except nicotine) abuse, any uncontrolled medical condition such as a history of thyroid disease, renal disease, cardiovascular problems, and liver disorders, pregnancy, or lactation. A board-certified psychiatrist assessed patients to ensure the presence of the inclusion criteria and absence of the items on the exclusion criteria.
Intervention
Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) either to the placebo or the experimental group. Both groups received 100-mg sertraline (Sobhan Co.) daily in a similar manner. For the intervention group, 100-mg cilostazol (Otsuka Co.) per day was administered while the placebo group received placebo tablets. During this trial, no other psychiatric medications were allowed.
Outcomes
The severity of depression and cilostazol effect on the improvement of depressive symptoms were examined using the HAM-D, a highly used 17-item rating scale for depressive symptoms severity assessment. Each item was scored on a 3- to 5-point scale. Participants were assessed at baseline, week 2, week 4, and week 6. Outcome measures were developed based on the HAM-D score changes between baseline and study time points. These are as follows: change scores from baseline to each time point as the primary outcome measure and (1) early improvement ( ≥20% reduction in HAM-D score in the first two weeks), (2) rate of response to treatment (≥50% reduction in the HAM-D score), (3) rate of remission (HAM-D score≤7), and (4) time needed to respond to treatment as the secondary outcome measures (Zeinoddini et al. 2015). Two experienced psychiatrists carried out all assessments with an inter-reliability > 90% on the HAM-D score.
Safety
A psychiatrist carefully monitored adverse events at baseline and each follow-up visit (weeks 2, 4, and 6). Adverse events were recorded using a 25-item checklist of possible side effects of the medications (Amiri et al. 2008; Khajavi et al. 2012; Shahmansouri et al. 2014). Moreover, the research team recorded any adverse effects by a phone call one week after starting the study. In addition, patients were also provided with a 24-h medical helpline phone number for medical advice if they experienced any adverse effects.
Sample size
According to a previously performed pilot study, considering the assumption of a mean difference (MD) of 2.5 on the HDRS score between the cilostazol and the placebo groups, with a standard deviation (SD) of 2.5 on HDRS score and a power of 80%, and a two-tailed significance level of 5%, a sample size of 30 patients in each group was calculated. Moreover, after assuming a 20% attrition rate, 25 patients were needed in each group.
Randomization, blinding, and drug allocation
A permuted blocked randomization method (blocks of four, allocation ratio 1:1) was used, and the randomized codes were generated using computer software. Cilostazol and placebo tablets were indistinguishable in their size, shape, color, texture, and odor. The allocation process was concealed using sequentially numbered, sealed opaque envelopes. The participants, the care providers, the outcome assessors, and the statistician were all blinded to treatment allocation. At week 6, patients were asked to guess whether they were in the experimental or control group. The results confirmed the success of blinding. In addition, two separate groups performed random allocation and clinical assessments.
Statistical analysis
All statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS Version 26 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). Continuous variables were presented as mean ± SD, and categorical variables were shown as frequencies with percentages. The primary and secondary outcome measures of the study were compared between patients in the cilostazol arm and the placebo arm.
Independent sample t test was performed for comparison of continuous variables (e.g., HAM-D score and changes of HAM-D score from baseline to each study time point) and chi-square (to compare sex ratio), binary logistic regression (to calculate the odds ratio (OR)), and Fisher’s exact tests were conducted for making comparisons between categorical variables (early improvement, rate of response to treatment, and rate of remission), when appropriate. We calculated the mean difference (MD) in change score and respective sample t test confidence intervals (95%CI) between baseline and week 2, week 4, and week 6. General linear model (GLM) repeated measures analysis was conducted to investigate time, treatment, and time × treatment effects. The between-subject factor was derived from the two treatment groups, and within-subject factors were HAM-D scores. If Mauchly’s test of sphericity was significant, a Greenhouse-Geisser adjustment in degrees of freedom was made. Kaplan-Meier estimation with the log-rank test was used to compare the time needed to respond to treatment between two groups. We used the last observation carried forward analysis to perform intention-to-treat analysis. A p value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant in all analyses.
Results
Participants
Figure 1 illustrates the flow diagram of the trial. A total of 114 patients were screened, and 58 patients met the inclusion criteria, among whom four patients (two in each arm) dropped out from the study before the first clinical examination (week 2) due to withdrawal of consent or substance abuse. As a result, 50 patients were enrolled in the study and randomized into either the (i) cilostazol+ sertraline group or (ii) placebo+ sertraline group with an equal allocation ratio of 1:1. Nevertheless, we included the two patients who withdrew in each arm using the last observation carried forward analysis, resulting in a total of 27 participants in each arm.
The two groups were matched in gender and age at baseline (Table 1). No statistically significant difference in HAM-D score was observed between the two groups at baseline (25.4 ± 2.5 vs. 25.6 ± 2.2 for cilostazol and placebo groups, respectively, p value=0.775).
Outcomes
Table 2 illustrates patients’ scores at each time point and changes from the baseline. At week 6, the HAM-D score was significantly lower in patients in the cilostazol group (mean difference (MD) [95%CI= −2.9 [-5.3, −0.6], p value= 0.015). Reduction in HAM-D scores compared to baseline was comparable between the two groups with a trend for a larger reduction in the cilostazol group at week 6 (p value= 0.063) (Table 2 and Fig. 2).
In terms of between-subject effects, a significant effect of treatment was detected according to GLM repeated measures (F= 4.16, df=1, p value= 0.047) (Table 3).
No significant difference was found between cilostazol and placebo groups regarding early improvement rate (85% versus 82%; respectively, p value= 0.715). At week 4, the number of patients responding to treatment was significantly higher in the cilostazol group than in the placebo group (67% versus 37%, p value= 0.032). However, the difference did not remain significant at week 6 (89% in the cilostazol group versus 85% in the placebo group, p value= 0.686) (Table 4). The remission rate was significantly higher in the cilostazol group (26%) compared with the placebo group (4%) at the study endpoint (p value= 0.047). Number needed to treat (NNT) analysis revealed that in order for one extra patient to experience remission after 6 weeks, 4.5 patients would have to get experimental therapy (rather than control treatment). According to the Kaplan-Meier estimation, the time needed for patient response to treatment in the cilostazol group was significantly shorter compared with the placebo group (4.24 ± 0.267 versus 5.04 ± 0.262 weeks; respectively, log-rank p value= 0.041).
Adverse effects
Muscle pain, abdominal pain, and nausea were the most common adverse effects in both groups (15% in cilostazol and 7% in placebo) (Table 5). No serious or unforeseen side effect was recorded. There was no statistically significant difference in the frequency of adverse effects between the two groups (p value>0.05 for all items).
Discussion
Our results demonstrate that patients receiving 100-mg cilostazol daily as adjuvant therapy had more remarkable improvements in their depressive symptoms after 6 weeks. Moreover, the remission rate at the study endpoint and the response rate at week 4 were significantly higher in the cilostazol group compared to the placebo group.
To date, only a recently published RCT has investigated the antidepressant effects of cilostazol in the management of MDD. Abdallah et al. found that adjuvant therapy with cilostazol in addition to escitalopram resulted in increased early improvement, remission, and response rates compared to placebo (Abdallah et al. 2021). The high response rate of the cilostazol group in our study is comparable with the response rate reported by studies assessing the antidepressant effects of adjuvant cilostazol and pentoxifylline (El-Haggar et al. 2018).
Cilostazol plays its antidepressant and anxiolytic role by increasing cAMP in the hippocampus through PDE3 inhibition. Besides, cilostazol has antiplatelet functions, which, altogether, makes it a promising therapeutic agent in treating patients suffering from MDD and concomitant cerebrovascular disease (CVD). Moreover, it has been established that cilostazol increases insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) in the hippocampus, resulting in improvements in cognitive functions in mice (Zhao et al. 2010). As peripheral and central production of IGF-1 induces antidepressant-like behavior, it can be considered as one of the mechanisms of action of cilostazol as an antidepressant (Duman et al. 2009; Zhao et al. 2010). Notably, cilostazol is suggested as a potential prophylactic antidepressant, which prevents oxidative stress via mediating nuclear factor-erythroid 2-related factor-2 (Nrf2) pathway (Abuelezz and Hendawy 2018).
Several animal studies investigated cilostazol’s effect on depressive behavior. The study by Kim et al. (Kim et al. 2016a) on the poststroke depression animal model showed that cilostazol improved all studied depressive behaviors, especially the Morris water maze test performance. Cilostazol treatment reduced noticeable atrophic changes in the ipsilateral striatum and hippocampus of ischemic chronic mild stress treated mice by inhibiting neuronal cell death and activating microglia. In addition, treating ischemic chronic mild stress-mice with cilostazol resulted in increased cAMP-response element-binding protein (CREB), brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), and tropomyosin receptor kinase B (TrkB) expression in the ipsilateral striatum and hippocampus. CREB phosphorylation was also shown in dopaminergic neurons of the midbrain. As a result, the number of newly formed cells and differentiation into neurons in the striatum and hippocampus were increased. These results suggest that cilostazol may have antidepressant effects on poststroke depression by inducing neurogenesis in the primary lesion and secondary foci through activating CREB/BDNF signaling. In another in vivo animal study (Patel et al. 2012a), mice treated with cilostazol had significantly lower mobility time in the forced swim test compared to the control group and those treated with fluoxetine, indicating improvement of depressive-like behavior. Agrawal et al. (Agrawal et al. 2014) showed that intraperitoneal injection of cilostazol has antidepressant activity in the animal model, as it reduces sedentary time in forced tail suspension, reduces motility, and increases wheel rotation during forced swim tests. However, the activity of cilostazol (20 mg/kg) was lower than that of fluoxetine (20 mg/kg).
Takahashi et al. (Takahashi et al. 2008) prescribed cilostazol added to usual antidepressants for a patient with geriatric depressive disorder with white matter T2-hyperintensities to search for a new booster therapy for elderly patients with refractory depression. Cerebral blood flow was assessed before and after cilostazol administration by 99mTc-ethyl-cysteine dimer single-photon emission computed tomography. The patient showed improvement in depressive symptoms as well as increased cerebral blood flow. These findings demonstrated the potential efficacy of cilostazol as a new drug for use in amplification therapy for depressed patients with white matter blood pressure; however, it was only reported in one patient.
Other than depression, several studies evaluated cilostazol’s effect on other psychiatric disorders. Sakurai et al. (Sakurai et al. 2013) reported possible preventive effects of cilostazol on cognitive decline in 20 patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and CVD. More on its impact on cognition, an open-label pilot trial performed by Shirayama et al. (Shirayama et al. 2011) stated that cilostazol had shown potential therapeutic effects for cognitive deficits in patients with schizophrenia (Rezaei et al. 2017).
In addition to cilostazol, other PDE inhibitors have shown promising outcomes in psychiatric disorders, including MDD. Recently, Farajollahi-Moghadam et al. (Farajollahi-Moghadam et al. 2021) provided supporting evidence for the efficacy of pentoxifylline combination therapy in patients with MDD. Earlier in 2018, El-Haggar et al. (El-Haggar et al. 2018) performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial and suggested pentoxifylline as an adjunct to regularly prescribed antidepressants in treating MDD patients. Correspondingly, Yesrebi et al. (Yasrebi et al. 2021) confirmed the safety and efficacy of short-term monotherapy with pentoxifylline in the treatment of patients with coronary artery disease. Pieces of evidence provided by Wang et al. (Wang et al. 2015) stated that PDE-4 (especially PDE4D4 and PDE4D5) had shown a high therapeutic index in mice and might be targeted to discover new antidepressants. Additionally, in an experimental model study, it has been reported that PDE2 inhibition resulted in increased antioxidant activity, leading to the development of novel drugs for stress-related disorders (Ding et al. 2014).
While this study is one of the first RCTs investigating and supporting the efficacy and safety of cilostazol as an adjuvant treatment for MDD, it faces several limitations. First, the follow-up time was for 6 weeks, limiting our study to assess the long-term effects of cilostazol in treating patients with MDD. Second, the sample size was also relatively small, although sufficient for statistical power. Further investigations with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods are required to assess the potential antidepressant effects of cilostazol both as adjuvant and monotherapy. Third, patient-based questionnaires, such as Beck’s depression inventory (BDI) or the quick inventory of depressive symptomatology (QIDS-SR), were not utilized as a supplemental tool to HAM-D. Nevertheless, the HAM-D is widely used in the assessment of MDD, and we controlled for the potential bias caused by observer rating with the inter-reliability rate of > 90% between the psychiatrists rating the patients. Fourth, since this study was pilot, serum levels of CREB1, BDNF, NF-κB, IGF-1, and cytokine profile of included patients were not measured. The alterations in the profiles of these biomarkers after treatment with cilostazol should be assessed in the following RCTs. Lastly, future studies with larger sample sizes can investigate the effect of potential confounders, i.e., diseases severity, duration, and the number of previous episodes, on the treatment response.
Conclusion
To conclude, cilostazol, a phosphodiesterase-3 inhibitor, has shown promising antidepressant effects along with its antiplatelet and cardioprotective roles. In our 6-week double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial, we assessed the potential therapeutic effects of cilostazol combination therapy (as an adjunct to sertraline) for patients with MDD. The current RCT reported the safety and efficacy of cilostazol, resulting in improvements in depressive symptoms. Preferably, additional RCTs are required to further assess the antidepressant effects of cilostazol.
Abbreviations
- AD:
-
Alzheimer’s disease
- BDNF:
-
Brain-derived neurotrophic factor
- cAMP:
-
Cyclic adenosine monophosphate
- cGMP:
-
Cyclic guanosine monophosphate
- CREB:
-
CAMP-response element-binding protein
- CVD:
-
Cardiovascular disease
- DSM-5:
-
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition
- ECT:
-
Electroconvulsive therapy
- GLM:
-
General linear model
- HAM-D:
-
Hamilton rating scale for depression
- IGF-1:
-
Insulin-like growth factor-I
- MD:
-
Mean difference
- MDD:
-
Major depressive disorder
- Nrf2:
-
Nuclear factor-erythroid 2-related factor-2
- PDE:
-
Phosphodiesterase
- TrkB:
-
Tropomyosin receptor kinase B
References
Abdallah MS, Ramadan AN, Omara‐Reda H, Mansour NO, Elsokary MA, Elsawah HK, Zaki SA, Abo Mansour HE, Mosalam EM (2021) Double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled pilot study of the phosphodiesterase‐3 inhibitor cilostazol as an adjunctive to antidepressants in patients with major depressive disorder. CNS Neurosci Ther
Abuelezz SA, Hendawy N (2018) Insights into the potential antidepressant mechanisms of cilostazol in chronically restraint rats: impact on the Nrf2 pathway. Behav Pharmacol 29:28–40
Agrawal R, Bhargava M, Santani D, Agrawal V, Ahmad I, Mishra A (2014) Antidepressant activity of cilostazol: an experimental study.
Akhondzadeh S, Ghayyoumi R, Rezaei F, Salehi B, Modabbernia AH, Maroufi A, Esfandiari GR, Naderi M, Ghebleh F, Tabrizi M, Rezazadeh SA (2011) Sildenafil adjunctive therapy to risperidone in the treatment of the negative symptoms of schizophrenia: a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial. Psychopharmacology 213:809–815
American Psychiatric Association A (1980) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. American Psychiatric Association Washington, DC
Amiri S, Mohammadi MR, Mohammadi M, Nouroozinejad GH, Kahbazi M, Akhondzadeh S (2008) Modafinil as a treatment for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in children and adolescents: a double blind, randomized clinical trial. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 32:145–149
Association WM (2013) World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 310:2191–2194
Bobon D, Breulet M, Gerard-Vandenhove MA, Guiot-Goffioul F, Plomteux G, Sastre-y-Hernández M, Schratzer M, Troisfontaines B, von Frenckell R, Wachtel H Is Phosphodiesterase inhibition a new mechanism of antidepressant action?
Brunoni AR, Fraguas R Jr, Fregni F (2009) Pharmacological and combined interventions for the acute depressive episode: focus on efficacy and tolerability. Ther Clin Risk Manag 5:897
Campbell E, Edwards T (2006) Zaprinast consolidates long-term memory when administered to neonate chicks trained using a weakly reinforced single trial passive avoidance task. Behav Brain Res 169:181–185
Delhaye S, Bardoni B (2021) Role of phosphodiesterases in the pathophysiology of neurodevelopmental disorders. Molecular Psychiatry: 1-13.
Ding L, Zhang C, Masood A, Li J, Sun J, Nadeem A, Zhang H-T, O’ Donnell JM, Xu Y, (2014) Protective effects of phosphodiesterase 2 inhibitor on depression- and anxiety-like behaviors: involvement of antioxidant and anti-apoptotic mechanisms. Behav Brain Res 268:150–158
Duman CH, Schlesinger L, Terwilliger R, Russell DS, Newton SS, Duman RS (2009) Peripheral insulin-like growth factor-I produces antidepressant-like behavior and contributes to the effect of exercise. Behav Brain Res 198:366–371
El-Haggar SM, Eissa MA, Mostafa TM, El-Attar KS, Abdallah MS (2018) The phosphodiesterase inhibitor pentoxifylline as a novel adjunct to antidepressants in major depressive disorder patients: a proof-of-concept, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Psychother Psychosom 87:331–339
Farajollahi-Moghadam M, Sanjari-Moghaddam H, Ghazizadeh Hasemi M, Sanatian Z, Talaei A, Akhondzadeh S (2021) Efficacy and safety of pentoxifylline combination therapy in major depressive disorder: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 36:140–146
Ferrari AJ, Charlson FJ, Norman RE, Patten SB, Freedman G, Murray CJ, Vos T, Whiteford HA (2013) Burden of depressive disorders by country, sex, age, and year: findings from the global burden of disease study 2010. PLoS med 10: e1001547
Gartlehner G, Wagner G, Matyas N, Titscher V, Greimel J, Lux L, Gaynes BN, Viswanathan M, Patel S, Lohr KN (2017) Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for major depressive disorder: review of systematic reviews. BMJ Open 7: e014912
Haapakoski R, Mathieu J, Ebmeier KP, Alenius H, Kivimäki M (2015) Cumulative meta-analysis of interleukins 6 and 1β, tumour necrosis factor α and C-reactive protein in patients with major depressive disorder. Brain Behav Immun 49:206–215
Hebb AL, Robertson HA (2007) Role of phosphodiesterases in neurological and psychiatric disease. Curr Opin Pharmacol 7:86–92
Hishikawa N, Fukui Y, Sato K, Ohta Y, Yamashita T, Abe K (2017) Comprehensive effects of galantamine and cilostazol combination therapy on patients with Alzheimer’s disease with asymptomatic lacunar infarction. Geriatr Gerontol Int 17:1384–1391
Houslay MD, Baillie GS, Maurice DH (2007) cAMP-Specific phosphodiesterase-4 enzymes in the cardiovascular system: a molecular toolbox for generating compartmentalized cAMP signaling. Circ Res 100:950–966
Houslay MD, Schafer P, Zhang KY (2005) Keynote review: phosphodiesterase-4 as a therapeutic target. Drug Discovery Today 10:1503–1519
Itoh T, Tokumura M, Abe K (2004) Effects of rolipram, a phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, in combination with imipramine on depressive behavior, CRE-binding activity and BDNF level in learned helplessness rats. Eur J Pharmacol 498:135–142
Khajavi D, Farokhnia M, Modabbernia A, Ashrafi M, Abbasi SH, Tabrizi M, Akhondzadeh S (2012) Oral scopolamine augmentation in moderate to severe major depressive disorder: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Clin Psychiatry 73:1428–1433
Kim YR, Kim HN, Hong KW, Shin HK, Choi BT (2016a) Anti-depressant effects of phosphodiesterase 3 inhibitor cilostazol in chronic mild stress-treated mice after ischemic stroke. Psychopharmacology 233:1055–1066
Kim YR, Kim HN, Hong KW, Shin HK, Choi BT (2016b) Anti-depressant effects of phosphodiesterase 3 inhibitor cilostazol in chronic mild stress-treated mice after ischemic stroke. Psychopharmacology 233:1055–1066
Maxwell C, Kanes S, Abel T, Siegel S (2004) Phosphodiesterase inhibitors: a novel mechanism for receptor-independent antipsychotic medications. Neuroscience 129:101–107
Menniti FS, Chappie TA, Humphrey JM, Schmidt CJ (2007) Phosphodiesterase 10A inhibitors: a novel approach to the treatment of the symptoms of schizophrenia. Current opinion in investigational drugs (London, England: 2000) 8: 54-59
Nandhakumar J, Raja AK, Tyagi MG (2010) Characterization of effects of phosphodiesterase (PDE) isozyme inhibitors in animal models of epilepsy. Life Sci Med Res 1–9
O’Donnell JM, Zhang H-T (2004) Antidepressant effects of inhibitors of cAMP phosphodiesterase (PDE4). Trends Pharmacol Sci 25:158–163
Patel DS, Anand IS, Bhatt PA (2012a) Evaluation of antidepressant and anxiolytic activity of phosphodiesterase 3 inhibitor-cilostazol. Indian J Psychol Med 34:124–128
Patel DS, Anand IS, Bhatt PA (2012b) Evaluation of antidepressant and anxiolytic activity of phosphodiesterase 3 inhibitor - cilostazol. Indian J Psychol Med 34:124–128
Rezaei F, Mesgarpour B, Jeddian A, Zeionoddini A, Mohammadinejad P, Salardini E, Shahriari M, Zeinoddini A, Akhondzadeh S (2017) Cilostazol adjunctive therapy in treatment of negative symptoms in chronic schizophrenia: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Hum Psychopharmacol 32:(4)
Sackeim HA (2001) The definition and meaning of treatment-resistant depression. J Clin Psychiatry 62:10–17
Sakurai H, Hanyu H, Sato T, Kume K, Hirao K, Kanetaka H, Iwamoto T (2013) Effects of cilostazol on cognition and regional cerebral blood flow in patients with Alzheimer’s disease and cerebrovascular disease: a pilot study. Geriatr Gerontol Int 13:90–97
Shahmansouri N, Farokhnia M, Abbasi SH, Kassaian SE, Noorbala Tafti AA, Gougol A, Yekehtaz H, Forghani S, Mahmoodian M, Saroukhani S, Arjmandi-Beglar A, Akhondzadeh S (2014) A randomized, double-blind, clinical trial comparing the efficacy and safety of Crocus sativus L. with fluoxetine for improving mild to moderate depression in post percutaneous coronary intervention patients. J Affect Disord 155:216–222
Shirayama Y, Konishi T, Hashimoto K (2011) Effects of add-on cilostazol on cognition in patients with schizophrenia: an open-label pilot trial. J Clin Psychopharmacol 31:659–661
Smit A, Schene A, Peeters F, Spijker J (2016) Tailored pharmacotherapy. Consultations about medication in a care programme for depression. Tijdschr Psychiatr 58:881–885
Taguchi A, Takata Y, Ihara M, Kasahara Y, Tsuji M, Nishino M, Stern D, Okada M (2013) Cilostazol improves cognitive function in patients with mild cognitive impairment: a retrospective analysis. Psychogeriatrics 13:164–169
Takahashi K, Oshima A, Inoue K, Takeyoshi H, Fukuda M, Mikuni M (2008) Novel augmentation therapy with cilostazol for the geriatric major depressive disorder patient with deep white matter hyperintensities on T2-weighted brain MRI: a case report. Pharmacopsychiatry 41:37–39
Uchiyama S, Demaerschalk BM, Goto S, Shinohara Y, Gotoh F, Stone WM, Money SR, Kwon SU (2009) Stroke prevention by cilostazol in patients with atherothrombosis: meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomized trials. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 18:482–490
Wang Z-Z, Yang W-X, Zhang Y, Zhao N, Zhang Y-Z, Liu Y-Q, Xu Y, Wilson SP, O’Donnell JM, Zhang H-T (2015) Phosphodiesterase-4D knock-down in the prefrontal cortex alleviates chronic unpredictable stress-induced depressive-like behaviors and memory deficits in mice. Sci Rep 5:1–15
Yasrebi S-O, Momtazmeaneh S, Moghaddam HS, Shahmansouri N, Mehrpooya M, Arbabi M, Ghazizadeh-Hashemi F, Akhondzadeh S (2021) Pentoxifylline for treatment of major depression after percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. J Psychosom Res 150:110635
Yoneyama M, Tanaka M, Hasebe S, Yamaguchi T, Shiba T, Ogita K (2015) Beneficial effect of cilostazol-mediated neuronal repair following trimethyltin-induced neuronal loss in the dentate gyrus. J Neurosci Res 93:56–66
Zeinoddini A, Sorayani M, Hassanzadeh E, Arbabi M, Farokhnia M, Salimi S, Ghaleiha A, Akhondzadeh S (2015) Pioglitazone adjunctive therapy for depressive episode of bipolar disorder: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Depress Anxiety 32:167–173
Zhang H-T, Huang Y, Jin SC, Frith SA, Suvarna N, Conti M, James M (2002) Antidepressant-like profile and reduced sensitivity to rolipram in mice deficient in the PDE4D phosphodiesterase enzyme. Neuropsychopharmacology 27:587–595
Zhao J, Harada N, Kurihara H, Nakagata N, Okajima K (2010) Cilostazol improves cognitive function in mice by increasing the production of insulin-like growth factor-I in the hippocampus. Neuropharmacology 58:774–783
Acknowledgements
This study was the postgraduate thesis of Dr. Aida Khadivi toward the Iranian Board of Psychiatry under the supervision of Prof. Shahin Akhondzadeh.
Funding
This study was supported by a grant from Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS) to Prof. Shahin Akhondzadeh (Grant number: 45985).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Aida Khadivi, Parnian Shobeiri, Sara Momtazmaneh, and Farhaneh-Sadat Samsami contributed equally to this work.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Khadivi, A., Shobeiri, P., Momtazmaneh, S. et al. Cilostazol as an adjunctive treatment in major depressive disorder: a pilot randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled clinical trial. Psychopharmacology 239, 551–559 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-021-06041-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-021-06041-0