The mechanisms of tolerance in antidepressant action

Targeting inflammation to influence mood following spinal cord injury: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the present study was to examine the efficacy of targeting inflammation as a means of improving mood following spinal cord injury (SCI) and explore the potential mechanisms of action.

METHODS

The study was a randomized, parallel-group, controlled, clinical trial (NCT02099890) whereby 20 participants with varying levels and severities of SCI were randomized (3:2) to either the treatment group, consisting of a 12-week anti-inflammatory diet, or control group. Outcome measures were assessed at baseline, 1 and 3 months, and consisted of CES-D scores of depression, markers of inflammation as assessed by various pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines and several amino acids related to depression.

RESULTS

A significant group × time interaction was found for CES-D (Center for Epidemiologic studies Depression Scale) score (p = 0.01), the TRP/LNAA (tryptophan/large neutral amino acid) ratio (p = 0.04), the composite score of pro-inflammatory cytokines (p = 0.04), IL-1β (interleukin-1 beta) (p = 0.04), and IFN-γ (interferon gamma) (p = 0.03). Pearson's r correlation showed significance between the ∆IL-1β and both the ∆CES-D score (r = 0.740, p < 0.01) and the ∆KYN/TRP (kynurenine/tryptophan) ratio (r = 0.536, p = 0.02). The ∆KYN/TRP ratio was also significantly correlated with the ∆CES-D score (r = 0.586, p = 0.01). Mediation analysis showed that the relationship between the ∆KYN/TRP ratio and the ∆CES-D score was mediated by the ∆IL-1β. Subgroup analysis showed that participants with high CES-D scores had significantly higher concentrations of IL-1β, and all correlations were maintained or strengthened within this subgroup.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the results demonstrated the effectiveness of targeting inflammation as a means of improving mood in SCI, with potential mechanisms relating to the reduction in IL-1β and improvements in levels of neuroactive compounds related to the kynurenine pathway. Due to the limited sample size, results should be interpreted with caution; however, they are worthy of further examination due to the potential impact of inflammation on depression.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02099890 .

Antidepressant treatment history and drug-placebo separation in a placebo-controlled trial in major depressive disorder

RATIONALE

A history of antidepressant treatment may predispose subjects toward placebo nonresponse in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in major depressive disorder (MDD).

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to examine self-reported prior antidepressant treatment and response in relationship to clinical outcome in an 8-week randomized trial of reuptake inhibitor antidepressant medication (MED) versus placebo (PBO) administered along with limited supportive care.

METHODS

Chi-square and MMRM analyses examined MED vs. PBO outcomes in antidepressant-naïve vs. antidepressant-experienced subjects. Linear regression models examined treatment history along with covariates as predictors of clinical improvement.

RESULTS

Among completers (n = 56), there was no significant difference in response rate between MED (53.3 %) and PBO (42.3 %) (χ (2) = 0.33, p = 0.28, 1-tailed). The antidepressant-experienced subgroup (n = 37), however, showed a significantly greater response rate to MED (52.4 %) than PBO (25.0 %) (χ (2) = 2.82, p = 0.047, 1-tailed). The full intent-to-treat (ITT) sample (n = 69) did not show a significant difference between MED and PBO group improvement over time, but in the treatment-experienced subgroup (n = 46), MED showed significantly greater improvement than PBO (coefficient = .39, SE = .23, p = .045, 1-tailed). A history of prior antidepressant treatment predicted poorer overall response independent of pretreatment symptom severity, number or length of previous episodes, subject expectations, or family history of MDD.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment history appears to constitute a factor that is distinct from other commonly studied illness characteristics or expectancy measures, and that impacts overall response as well as drug-placebo separation in RCTs.

Withdrawal Symptoms after Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor Discontinuation: A Systematic Review

Background: Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) are widely used in medical practice. They have been associated with a broad range of symptoms, whose clinical meaning has not been fully appreciated. Methods: The PRISMA guidelines were followed to conduct a systematic review of the literature. Titles, abstracts, and topics were searched using the following terms: 'withdrawal symptoms' OR 'withdrawal syndrome' OR 'discontinuation syndrome' OR 'discontinuation symptoms', AND 'SSRI' OR 'serotonin' OR 'antidepressant' OR 'paroxetine' OR 'fluoxetine' OR 'sertraline' OR 'fluvoxamine' OR 'citalopram' OR 'escitalopram'. The electronic research literature databases included CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, PubMed and Web-of-Science from inception of each database to July 2014. Results: There were 15 randomized controlled studies, 4 open trials, 4 retrospective investigations, and 38 case reports. The prevalence of the syndrome was variable, and its estimation was hindered by a lack of case identification in many studies. Symptoms typically occur within a few days from drug discontinuation and last a few weeks, also with gradual tapering. However, many variations are possible, including late onset and/or longer persistence of disturbances. Symptoms may be easily misidentified as signs of impending relapse. Conclusions: Clinicians need to add SSRI to the list of drugs potentially inducing withdrawal symptoms upon discontinuation, together with benzodiazepines, barbiturates, and other psychotropic drugs. The term 'discontinuation syndrome' that is currently used minimizes the potential vulnerabilities induced by SSRI and should be replaced by 'withdrawal syndrome'. © 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel.

From Randomized Controlled Trials of Antidepressant Drugs to the Meta-Analytic Synthesis of Evidence: Methodological Aspects Lead to Discrepant Findings

During the last decade, several meta-analytic studies employing different methodological approaches have had inconsistent conclusions regarding antidepressant efficacy. Herein, we aim to comment on methodological aspects that may have contributed to disparate findings. We initially discuss methodological inconsistencies and limitations related to the conduct of individual antidepressant randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including differences in allocated samples, limitations of psychometric scales, possible explanations for the heightened placebo response rates in antidepressant RCTs across the past two decades as well as the reporting of conflicts of interest. In the second part of this article, we briefly describe the various meta-analyses techniques (e.g., simple random effects meta-analysis and network meta-analysis) and the application of these methods to synthesize evidence related to antidepressant efficacy. Recently published antidepressant metaanalyses often provide discrepant results and similar results often lead to different interpretations. Finally, we propose strategies to improve methodology considering real-world clinical scenarios.

The missing link between clinical states and biomarkers in mental disorders

Current diagnostic definitions of psychiatric disorders based on collections of symptoms encompass very heterogeneous populations and are thus likely to yield spurious results when exploring biological correlates of mental disturbances. It has been suggested that large studies of biomarkers across diagnostic entities may yield improved clinical information. Such a view is based on the concept of assessment as a collection of symptoms devoid of any clinical judgment and interpretation. Yet, important advances have been made in recent years in clinimetrics, the science of clinical judgment. The current clinical taxonomy in psychiatry, which emphasizes reliability at the cost of clinical validity, does not include effects of comorbid conditions, timing of phenomena, rate of progression of an illness, responses to previous treatments, and other clinical distinctions that demarcate major prognostic and therapeutic differences among patients who otherwise seem to be deceptively similar since they share the same psychiatric diagnosis. Clinimetrics may provide the missing link between clinical states and biomarkers in psychiatry, building pathophysiological bridges from clinical manifestations to their neurobiological counterparts.

Risk factors of cycle acceleration in acutely admitted patients with bipolar disorder

OBJECTIVE

To identify risk factors associated with cycle acceleration (CA), that is, progressive decrease in duration of syndrome-free intervals between affective episodes, in acutely admitted patients with bipolar disorder (BD).

METHOD

All patients (n = 210) with BD I (67%) and BD II (33%) (DSM-IV) acutely admitted to a hospital serving a catchment area were compared in retrospect with regard to a positive or negative history of CA. Putative risk factors of CA with a P-value <0.05 in uni-variate tests were secondly entered into a logistic regression model.

RESULTS

The logistic regression model was statistically significant (P < 0.0001) and explained between 45.3% and 60.5% of the variance of CA status. 83.7% of the cases were correctly classified with a sensitivity of 87.2% and a specificity of 80.4%. Unique significant risk factors of CA were increasing severity of affective episodes (odds ratio (OR) = 28.8), BD II (OR = 3.3), hypomanic/manic episode induced by an antidepressant and/or alcohol (OR = 3.3), and female gender (OR = 3.1).

CONCLUSION

The clinical factors associated with CA may help targeting patients with BD with a course aggravation, and are in line with previously reported neuropathological processes of illness progression.

Iatrogenic comorbidity in childhood and adolescence: new insights from the use of antidepressant drugs

The term "iatrogenic comorbidity" refers to unfavorable modifications in the course of an illness, with regard to its characteristics and responsiveness, which may be related to previous treatments. Some iatrogenic adverse events arising from either pharmacotherapy or psychotherapy cannot be subsumed under the traditional rubric of adverse effects and require careful evaluation. Children and adolescents are generally more likely to experience adverse health consequences after drug treatment. The use of antidepressant drugs in this age group may cause potential long-term detrimental effects, such as mood elevation that does not subside when drugs are discontinued and may predispose to the development of a bipolar disorder. The concept of iatrogenic comorbidity in children and adolescents has heuristic value in weighing potential benefits and risks associated particularly with psychotropic treatments.

Burning issues in the meta-analysis of pharmaceutical trials for depression

During the last decade a number of meta-analytic studies have been published and they triggered a debate on the true clinical usefulness of antidepressants. The current article comments on problems within the randomized controlled trials design, the study samples, the psychometric scales, the methods of meta-analysis, the interpretation of the results, and the reporting of conflicts of interest. Although the meta-analyses published so far agree that medication works in severe depression, they question its efficacy in mild cases. However, several methodological issues should be clarified before conclusions are definite. Different methods give different results and similar results seem to entertain a variety of interpretations. In the future it is important to address all of these problems, and to improve methodology on the basis of clinically informed choices. Otherwise, meta-analysis risks alienation from clinical reality and thus risks becoming the 21(st) century psychoanalysis.

Emerging clinical trends and perspectives on comorbid patterns of mental disorders in research

Comorbidity is a well-established and documented phenomenon in mental disorders and medicine with heuristic value. The concept of comorbidity remains however poorly defined and lacks a comprehensive and coherent theoretical framework. There is a need to develop coherent methodological strategies in order to promote a fuller understanding of the implications of comorbidity and to exploit its potential value with regard to etiopathogenic and therapeutic issues. This position paper makes recommendations of improved methodological standards and procedures and discusses a range of options that can provide incremental information that is likely to improve therapeutic outcomes.

Excessive mood elevation and behavioral activation with antidepressant treatment of juvenile depressive and anxiety disorders: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The prevalence, characteristics and implications of excessive arousal-activation in children and adolescents treated with antidepressants for specific illnesses have not been systematically examined.

METHODS

We compared reports of antidepressant trials (n = 6,767 subjects) in juvenile depressive (n = 17) and anxiety disorders (n = 25) for consensus-based indications of psychopathological mood elevation or behavioral activation.

RESULTS

Rates of excessive arousal-activation during treatment with antidepressants were at least as high in juvenile anxiety (13.8%) as depressive (9.79%) disorders, and much lower with placebos (5.22 vs. 1.10%, respectively; both p < 0.0001). The antidepressant/placebo risk ratio for such reactions in paired comparisons was 3.50 (12.9/3.69%), and the meta-analytically pooled rate ratio was 1.7 (95% confidence interval: 1.2-2.2; both p ≤ 0.001). Overall rates for 'mania or hypomania', specifically, were 8.19% with and 0.17% without antidepressant treatment, with large drug/placebo risk ratios among depressive (10.4/0.45%) and anxiety (1.98/0.00%) disorder patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Risks of excessive mood elevation during antidepressant treatment, including mania-hypomania, were much greater than with placebo, and similar in juvenile anxiety and depressive disorders. Excessive arousal-activation in children or adolescents treated with antidepressants for anxiety as well as depressive disorders calls for particular caution and monitoring for potential risk of future bipolar disorder.

One ring to rule them all?--Temporospatial specificity of deep brain stimulation for treatment-resistant depression

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) for intractable cases of depression has emerged as a valuable therapeutic option during the last decade. While several locations have been intensely investigated in recent years, the literature is lacking an all-encompassing perspective thereupon asking if and how these stimulation sites relate to each other and what this may imply for the underlying mechanisms of action of this treatment modality. We aim at proposing a model of DBS mechanism of action with particular focus on several puzzling aspects regarding an apparent temporo-spatial specificity of antidepressant action, i.e. the discrepancy between protracted response after initiation of stimulation and rapid relapse upon discontinuation, as well as differential effects on psychopathology. We suggest that the pre-treatment depressive state is determined by the interaction of individual traits with dysfunctional adaptive processes as responses to stress, resulting in a disease-associated, overtly dysfunctional, equilibrium. The antidepressant action of DBS is thought to modify and re-set this equilibrium in a temporospatially distinct manner by influencing the activity states of two different brain circuitries. The idea of sequential and temporospatially distinct mechanisms of action bears implications for the assessment of psychopathology and behavior in clinical and preclinical studies as well as investigations into brain circuit activity states.

Role of orexin in the pathophysiology of depression: potential for pharmacological intervention

Depression is a devastating mental disorder with an increasing impact throughout the world, whereas the efficacy of currently available pharmacological treatment is still limited. Growing evidence from preclinical and clinical studies suggests that orexins (neuropeptides that are also known as hypocretins) and their receptors are involved in the physiopathology of depression. Indeed, the orexinergic system regulates functions that are disturbed in depressive states such as sleep, reward system, feeding behavior, the stress response and monoaminergic neurotransmission. Nevertheless, the precise role of orexins in behavioral and neurophysiological impairments observed in depression is still unclear. Both hypoactivity and hyperactivity of orexin signaling pathways have been found to be associated with depression. These discrepancies in the literature prompted the necessity for additional investigations, as the orexinergic system appears to be a promising target to treat the symptoms of depression. This assumption is underlined by recent data suggesting that pharmacological blockade of orexin receptors induces a robust antidepressant-like effect in an animal model of depression. Further preclinical and clinical studies are needed to progress the overall understanding of the orexinergic alterations in depression, which will eventually translate preliminary observations into real therapeutic potential. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of human and animal research dedicated to the study of the specific involvement of orexins in depression, and to propose a framework in which disturbances of the orexinergic system are regarded as an integral component of the etiology of depression.

Staging of mental disorders: systematic review

BACKGROUND

The staging method, whereby a disorder is characterized according to its seriousness, extension, development and features, is attracting increasing attention in clinical psychology and psychiatry. The aim of this systematic review was to critically summarize the tools that are available for reproducing and standardizing the clinical intuitions that are involved in a staging formulation.

METHODS

A comprehensive research was conducted on the MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE and Cochrane databases from inception to May 2012. The following search terms were used: 'stage/staging' AND 'psychiatric disorder/mental disorder/schizophrenia/mood disorder/anxiety disorder/substance use disorder/eating disorder'.

RESULTS

A total of 78 studies were identified for inclusion in the review. We discussed studies addressing or related to the issue of staging in a number of mental disorders (schizophrenia, unipolar depression, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, substance use disorders, anorexia and bulimia nervosa). The literature indicates that disorders have a longitudinal development or a treatment history that can be categorized according to stages. We proposed staging formulations for the above-mentioned psychiatric disorders.

CONCLUSION

Staging models offer innovative assessment tools for clinical psychologists and psychiatrists. Characterizing each stage of an illness demarcates major prognostic and therapeutic differences among patients who otherwise seem to be deceptively similar since they share the same psychiatric diagnosis. A stage 0 to denote an at-risk condition does not appear to be warranted at the current state of research.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressant treatment discontinuation syndrome: a review of the clinical evidence and the possible mechanisms involved

Besides demonstrated efficacy, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) hold other advantages over earlier antidepressants such as greater tolerability and a wider range of clinical applications. However, there is a growing body of clinical evidence which suggests that SSRIs could, in some cases, be associated with a withdrawal reaction upon cessation of regular use. In addition to sensory and gastrointestinal-related symptoms, the somatic symptoms of the SSRI discontinuation syndrome include dizziness, lethargy, and sleep disturbances. Psychological symptoms have also been documented, usually developing within 1–7 days following SSRI discontinuation. The characteristics of the discontinuation syndrome have been linked to the half-life of a given SSRI, with a greater number of reports emerging from paroxetine compared to other SSRIs. However, many aspects of the neurobiology of the SSRI discontinuation syndrome (or SSRI withdrawal syndrome) remain unresolved. Following a comprehensive overview of the clinical evidence, we will discuss the underlying pathophysiology of the SSRI discontinuation syndrome and comment on the use of animal models to better understand this condition.

Clinical judgment in psychiatry. Requiem or reveille?

BACKGROUND

There is increasing awareness of a crisis in psychiatric research and practice. Psychopathology and clinical judgment are often discarded as non-scientific and obsolete methods. Yet, in their everyday practice, psychiatrists use observation, description and classification, test explanatory hypotheses, and formulate clinical decisions.

AIM

The aim of this review was to examine the clinical judgment in psychiatry, with special reference to clinimetrics, a domain concerned with the measurement of clinical phenomena that do not find room in customary taxonomy.

METHODS

A MEDLINE search from inception to August 2011 using the keywords "clinical judgment" and "clinimetric" in relation to psychiatric illness for articles in English language was performed. It was supplemented by a manual search of the literature. Choice of items was based on their established or potential incremental increase in clinical information compared with use of standard diagnostic criteria. The most representative examples were selected.

RESULTS

Research on clinical judgment has disclosed several innovative assessment strategies: the use of diagnostic transfer stations instead of diagnostic endpoints using repeated assessments, subtyping versus integration of different diagnostic categories, staging, macro-analysis, extension of clinical information beyond symptomatic features. Evidence-based medicine does not appear to provide an adequate scientific background for challenges of clinical practice in psychiatry and needs to be integrated with clinical judgment. CONCLUSIONS. A renewed interest in clinical judgment may yield substantial advances in clinical assessment and treatment. A different clinical psychiatry is available and can be practiced now.

Innovative trends in the design of therapeutic trials in psychopharmacology and psychotherapy

The standard randomized controlled trial design is still based on the acute disease model. This is in sharp contrast with the fact that the patient is likely to have experienced other treatments before, that may actually modify clinical course and responsiveness. The current standard of therapeutic trial in psychiatry is represented by the large, multi-center, controlled randomized trial with broad inclusion criteria, and little attention to other factors such as the clinical history of patients and comorbidity. The heterogeneous features of these patients would then affect the outcome of the trial. Conflicting results among randomized controlled trials can represent a spectrum of outcomes, based on different patient groups, more than bias or random variability. If a treatment is tested by a series of small trials with inclusion criteria for specific characteristics (including treatment history, subgroups and comorbidity), we may have a better knowledge of its indications and contraindications. Further, there is increasing need of expanding the content of customary clinical information, by including evaluation of variables such as stress, lifestyle, well-being, illness behavior and psychological symptoms. These joint strategies would actually constitute a paradigm shift in psychopharmacology and psychotherapy research.

A critical review of the mechanism of action for the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors: do these drugs possess anti-inflammatory properties and how relevant is this in the treatment of depression?

The selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are the most widely prescribed pharmacological treatment for depression. Since their introduction many have considered the primary mechanism by which the SSRIs produced therapeutic improvement in depression is their effect on monoaminergic signalling. In recent years, however, the credibility of the monoamine theory and the therapeutic efficacy of these compounds in the treatment of depression has been extensively criticized. In the current review the legitimacy of these criticisms is critically examined, in many instances the evidence base used to support these criticisms is found to be weak. Nevertheless, the apparent 'failure' of the monoamine theory has been of benefit in motivating research into alternative mechanisms through which the SSRIs may act. Given research demonstrating that depressive symptoms are intimately linked with disturbances in pro-inflammatory signalling, perhaps the most promising discovery has been the realisation that SSRIs posses significant anti-inflammatory properties. These recent findings are discussed and contextualised with respect to the neurogenic, neurotrophic and gluatamatergic effects that these drugs also possess.

Taking the Perspective that a Depressive State Reflects Inflammation: Implications for the Use of Antidepressants

This paper reviews both the evidence that supports the characterization of depression as an inflammatory disorder and the different biochemical mechanisms that have been postulated for the connection between inflammation and depression. This association offers credible explanation for the short term efficacy of antidepressants, which have short term anti-inflammatory effects. Evidence for those anti-inflammatory effects is discussed. Evidence of the contrary long-term effects of antidepressants, which increase rather than decrease inflammation, is also reviewed. It is argued that this increase in inflammation would predict an increase in chronicity among depressed patients that have been treated with antidepressants drugs, which has been noted in the literature. A brief discussion of alternatives for decreasing inflammation, some of which have demonstrated efficacy in ameliorating depression, is presented.

Relabeling the medications we call antidepressants

This paper raises the question about whether the data on the medications we call antidepressants justify the label of antidepressant. The authors argue that a true antidepressant should be clearly superior to placebo, should offer a risk/benefit balance that exceeds that of alternative treatments, should not increase suicidality, should not increase anxiety and agitation, should not interfere with sexual functioning, and should not increase depression chronicity. Unfortunately, these medications appear to fall short on all of these dimensions. Many of the "side effects" of these medications have larger effect sizes than the antidepressant effect size. To call these medications antidepressants may make sense from a marketing standpoint but may be misleading from a scientific perspective. Consumers deserve a label that more accurately reflects the data on the largest effects and helps them understand the range of effects from these medications. In other words, it may make just as much sense to call these medications antiaphrodisiacs as antidepressants because the negative effects on libido and sexual functioning are so common. It can be argued that a misleading label may interfere with our commitment to informed consent. Therefore, it may be time to stop calling these medications antidepressants.

A double-blind, placebo-controlled study of aripiprazole adjunctive to antidepressant therapy among depressed outpatients with inadequate response to prior antidepressant therapy (ADAPT-A Study)

BACKGROUND

We assessed the efficacy of low-dose aripiprazole added to antidepressant therapy (ADT) in major depressive disorder (MDD) patients with inadequate response to prior ADT.

METHODS

As per the sequential parallel comparison design, 225 MDD subjects were randomized to adjunctive treatment with aripiprazole 2 mg/day or placebo across two 30-day phases, with a 2:3:3 randomization ratio to drug/drug (aripiprazole 2 mg/day in phase 1; 5 mg/day in phase 2), placebo/placebo (placebo in both phases), and placebo/drug (placebo in phase 1; aripiprazole 2 mg/day in phase 2). Eligible subjects were patients whose MDD was independently deemed 'valid' with SAFER criteria. Subjects had been receiving ADT for ≥8 weeks, and had inadequate response to ≥1 and <4 adequate ADTs in the current episode, as defined by the Antidepressant Treatment Response Questionnaire.

RESULTS

The pooled, weighted response difference between aripiprazole 2 mg/day and placebo in the two phases was 5.6% (p = 0.18; NS). The aripiprazole 2 mg/day-placebo difference on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale pooled across the two phases was -1.51 (p = 0.065; NS). Other secondary endpoint analyses showed nonsignificant pooled differences favoring aripiprazole over placebo. Of the 225 randomized subjects in phase 1, 2 dropped out in both arms, while in phase 2, of 138 phase 1 placebo nonresponders, 9 dropped out on aripiprazole and 5 on placebo. There were only minimal differences in adverse event rates between treatments, except for constipation, weight gain, and dry mouth, more common on aripiprazole.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides clear support for the tolerability of low-dose aripiprazole as an ADT-augmenting agent, with marginal efficacy.

Primum non nocere: an evolutionary analysis of whether antidepressants do more harm than good

Antidepressant medications are the first-line treatment for people meeting current diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder. Most antidepressants are designed to perturb the mechanisms that regulate the neurotransmitter serotonin - an evolutionarily ancient biochemical found in plants, animals, and fungi. Many adaptive processes evolved to be regulated by serotonin, including emotion, development, neuronal growth and death, platelet activation and the clotting process, attention, electrolyte balance, and reproduction. It is a principle of evolutionary medicine that the disruption of evolved adaptations will degrade biological functioning. Because serotonin regulates many adaptive processes, antidepressants could have many adverse health effects. For instance, while antidepressants are modestly effective in reducing depressive symptoms, they increase the brain's susceptibility to future episodes after they have been discontinued. Contrary to a widely held belief in psychiatry, studies that purport to show that antidepressants promote neurogenesis are flawed because they all use a method that cannot, by itself, distinguish between neurogenesis and neuronal death. In fact, antidepressants cause neuronal damage and mature neurons to revert to an immature state, both of which may explain why antidepressants also cause neurons to undergo apoptosis (programmed death). Antidepressants can also cause developmental problems, they have adverse effects on sexual and romantic life, and they increase the risk of hyponatremia (low sodium in the blood plasma), bleeding, stroke, and death in the elderly. Our review supports the conclusion that antidepressants generally do more harm than good by disrupting a number of adaptive processes regulated by serotonin. However, there may be specific conditions for which their use is warranted (e.g., cancer, recovery from stroke). We conclude that altered informed consent practices and greater caution in the prescription of antidepressants are warranted.

Management of treatment-resistant depression

Given the limitations of evidence for treatment options that are consistently effective for TRD and the possibility that TRD is in fact a form of depression that has a low probability of resolving, how can clinicians help patients with TRD? Perhaps the most important conceptual shift that needs to take place before treatment can be helpful is to accept TRD as a chronic illness, an illness similar to many others, one that can be effectively managed but that is not, at our present level of knowledge, likely to be cured. An undue focus on remission or even a 50% diminution of symptoms sets unrealistic goals for both patients and therapists and may lead to overtreatment and demoralization. The focus should be less on eliminating depressive symptoms and more on making sense of and learning to function better in spite of them. It is important to acknowledge the difficult nature of the depressive illness, to remove blame from the patient and clinician for not achieving remission, to set realistic expectations, and to help promote better psychosocial functioning even in the face of persisting symptoms. The critical element when implementing such an approach is a judicious balance between maintaining hope for improvement without setting unrealistic expectations. It is important to reemphasize that following a disease management model with acceptance of the reality of a chronic illness is not nihilistic and does not mean the abandonment of hope for improvement. The first step in treating a patient with TRD is to perform a comprehensive assessment of the patient’s past and current treatment history to ensure that evidence-based treatment trials have in fact been undertaken, and if not, such treatment trials should be implemented. If the patient continues to have significant residual symptoms, it is important to determine the impact is of these symptoms on the patient’s quality of life and ability to function. It is also important to evaluate the factors that may be contributing to the persistence of depressive symptoms such as comorbid personality disorders, somatic disorders, substance abuse, and work and interpersonal conflicts. The treatment of patients with TRD needs to move beyond attempts to modify symptoms without taking into consideration and attempting to modify the patient’s personality, coping skills, and social system. Further somatic treatment trials can be undertaken, if desired by the patient and therapist, as a small (5%–15%) percentage of patients may respond and further treatment trials, and this may engender hope. The risk with this approach is that patients and therapists may not work at disease management skills if they believe there may be a resolution of the depression if they could just find the right medication or intervention. Therapists may also feel pressured by patients, families, insurance companies, as well as their own sense of helplessness to escalate treatment in a more and more aggressive manner in an attempt to achieve an elusive remission. A disease management program can provide the therapist and patient with sufficient structure, skills, and goals to encourage ongoing treatment without resorting to unproven measures that may create more side effects and problems. It is particularly important to include the patient’s significant others in the reformulation of the patient’s problem and thereby learn how to manage the illness more effectively. Significant others and family members can be invaluable in providing support for dealing with the difficult process of acquiring a new skill set. Indeed, they spend significantly more time with the patient than does any therapist. Family members are likely to provide this kind of support only if they have been part of the assessment and treatment process. Patients with a wide range of chronic medical illnesses can and do learn to function effectively and to achieve a satisfying quality of life in spite of their illness. There is no reason to think that patients with TRD should not be able to achieve a similar level of illness management, functioning, and quality of life.

Treatment selection in depression: the role of clinical judgment

The selection of treatment in depression should be filtered by clinical judgment, taking into consideration a number of clinical variables, such as characteristics and severity of depressive episode, co-occurring symptomatology and problems (not necessarily syndromes), medical comorbidities, and patient’s history with particular reference to treatment of previous episodes, if they occurred. Such information should be placed within what is actually available in the specific treatment setting and should be integrated with the patient’s preferences. In clinical practice, on the one end, clinical decisions may be affected by irrational factors (eg, exposure to massive doses of pharmaceutical propaganda or familiarity with a specific psychotherapy or medication). On the other end, psychiatrists often use sophisticated forms of clinical judgment that are suitable for clinical challenges but are not addressed by current research strategies. There is increasing awareness of the need of differentiating depression according to specific subtypes, yet clear-cut indications for these subdivisions are still missing. The role of biomarkers, despite many promising research strategies, is still far from offering reliable clinical guidance. In the meanwhile, there are important indications that come from clinical research. Treatment of depression may be conceptualized as integrated treatment of the various components of symptomatology, lifestyle, and social adjustment. An integrated treatment model, discussed in detail elsewhere, is realistic and practical, and not just idealistic. It may be frustrating to those who like oversimplified biological models; however, approaches that integrate clinimetrics, patient priorities, lifestyle issues, and clinical judgment are more in keeping with the complexity of clinical situations and the challenge of depression treatment.

Blue again: perturbational effects of antidepressants suggest monoaminergic homeostasis in major depression

Some evolutionary researchers have argued that current diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder (MDD) may not accurately distinguish true instances of disorder from a normal, adaptive stress response. According to disorder advocates, neurochemicals like the monoamine neurotransmitters (serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine) are dysregulated in major depression. Monoamines are normally under homeostatic control, so the monoamine disorder hypothesis implies a breakdown in homeostatic mechanisms. In contrast, adaptationist hypotheses propose that homeostatic mechanisms are properly functioning in most patients meeting current criteria for MDD. If the homeostatic mechanisms regulating monoamines are functioning properly in these patients, then oppositional tolerance should develop with prolonged antidepressant medication (ADM) therapy. Oppositional tolerance refers to the forces that develop when a homeostatic mechanism has been subject to prolonged pharmacological perturbation that attempt to bring the system back to equilibrium. When pharmacological intervention is discontinued, the oppositional forces cause monoamine levels to overshoot their equilibrium levels. Since depressive symptoms are under monoaminergic control, this overshoot should cause a resurgence of depressive symptoms that is proportional to the perturbational effect of the ADM. We test this prediction by conducting a meta-analysis of ADM discontinuation studies. We find that the risk of relapse after ADM discontinuation is positively associated with the degree to which ADMs enhance serotonin and norepinephrine in prefrontal cortex, after controlling for covariates. The results are consistent with oppositional tolerance, and provide no evidence of malfunction in the monoaminergic regulatory mechanisms in patients meeting current diagnostic criteria for MDD. We discuss the evolutionary and clinical implications of our findings.

STAR*D: A Tale and Trail of Bias

The 35-million-dollar Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study is the largest antidepressant effectiveness study ever conducted. STAR*D enrolled 4,041 depressed patients and provided them with exemplary free acute and continuing antidepressant care to maximize their likelihood of achieving and maintaining remission. Patients who failed to get adequate relief from their first antidepressant were provided with up to three additional trials of pharmacologically distinct treatments. This article identifies numerous instances of apparent bias in the conduct and reporting of outcomes from this study. In contrast to STAR*D’s report of positive findings supporting antidepressants’ effectiveness, only 108 of its 4,041 patients (2.7%) had an acute-care remission, and during the 12 months of continuing care, these patients neither relapsed nor dropped out. This article also discusses the roles of the American Journal of Psychiatry (AJP) and the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) in promoting the biased reporting of STAR*D’s results.