Clinical issues in use of atypical antipsychotics for depressed patients

Is Obesity A Determinant Of Success With Pharmacological Treatment For Depression? A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis And Meta-Regression

BACKGROUND

The bidirectional association between Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and obesity suggests that body mass index (BMI) at the baseline could influence remission rates (RR) with pharmacological treatment. We evaluated the influence of baseline BMI on the chances of remission among patients with MDD administered antidepressants.

METHODS

Based on the guidelines of the PRISMA statement, we conducted a systematic review on PubMed, Cochrane and Embase databases with subsequent meta-analysis and meta-regression. We included only randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of antidepressants of different classes (monotherapy and combined therapies) that evidenced baseline BMI assessment. We created a model to describe the linear relationship between baseline BMI and RR.

RESULTS

Our systematic review yielded 70 studies with a total of 9,779 patients in the active group and 7,136 patients in the placebo group. In placebo controlled studies, BMI influenced the RR of patients randomized to active treatment. The RR for antidepressants in monotherapy was higher in normal weight to overweight patients rather than obese patients (33% vs 12%, respectively). Also in monotherapy, the RR is higher when the study is conducted on patients with a lower baseline BMI (p=0.029). For combined therapies, the pooled RR was higher in obese patients rather than in normal weight to overweight patients (75% vs 17%, respectively).

LIMITATIONS

BMI provides no information about body composition and obesity can be related to several potential confounders that potentially influence RR.

CONCLUSION

The RR with antidepressant therapy seems to be associated with baseline BMI in patients with MDD, although this simple variable was insufficiently explored so far.

Predictors of Quality of Life Improvement with Escitalopram and Adjunctive Aripiprazole in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder: A CAN-BIND Study Report

BACKGROUND

Non-response to first-line treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD) is common; for such individuals, quality of life (QoL) impairments can be severe. Identifying predictors of QoL changes may support the management of cases with persistent depressive symptoms despite adequate initial pharmacological/psychological treatment.

OBJECTIVE

The present study aimed to explore predictors of domain-specific QoL improvement following adjunctive aripiprazole treatment for inadequate response to initial antidepressant therapy.

METHODS

We evaluated secondary QoL outcomes from a CAN-BIND (Canadian Biomarker Integration Network in Depression) study in patients with MDD who did not respond to an initial 8 weeks of escitalopram and received a further 8 weeks of adjunctive aripiprazole (n = 96). Physical, psychological, social, and environmental QoL domains were assessed using the World Health Organization QoL Scale Brief Version (WHOQOL-BREF). Clinician-rated depressive symptoms were assessed using the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Functioning was measured with the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS). Satisfaction with medication was assessed with a single item from the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire Short Form (Q-LES-Q-SF). Exploratory t-tests were used to describe domain score changes. A hierarchical linear regression was used to explore demographic, clinical, and treatment-related predictors of improvement.

RESULTS

Across domains, QoL improved with adjunctive aripiprazole treatment. Satisfaction with medication and MADRS and SDS scores similarly improved. Symptom reduction was a predictor for positive change to physical and psychological QoL; functioning improvements were predictive of increases to all QoL domains. Satisfaction with medication predicted improvements to physical and psychological domains, whereas number of medication trials was a predictor of worsening QoL in the physical domain.

CONCLUSION

The final model explained the most variance in psychological (68%) and physical (67%) QoL. Less variance was explained for environmental (43%) and social QoL (33%), highlighting a need for further exploration of predictors in these domains. Strategies such as functional remediation may have potential to support QoL for individuals with persistent depressive symptoms.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT016557.

Impacts on Quality of Life with Escitalopram Monotherapy and Aripiprazole Augmentation in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder: A CAN-BIND Report

INTRODUCTION

Many individuals with major depressive disorder (MDD) do not respond to initial antidepressant monotherapy. Adjunctive aripiprazole is recommended for treatment non-response; however, the impacts on quality of life (QoL) for individuals who receive this second-line treatment strategy have not been described.

METHODS

We evaluated secondary QoL outcomes in patients with MDD (n=179). After 8 weeks of escitalopram, non-responders (<50% decrease in clinician-rated depression) were treated with adjunctive aripiprazole for 8 weeks (n=97); responders continued escitalopram (n=82). A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated change in Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Short Form scores. QoL was described relative to normative benchmarks.

RESULTS

Escitalopram responders experienced the most QoL improvements in the first treatment phase. For non-responders, QoL improved with a large effect during adjunctive aripiprazole treatment. At the endpoint, 47% of patients achieving symptomatic remission still had impaired QoL.

DISCUSSION

Individuals who were treated with adjunctive aripiprazole after non-response to escitalopram experienced improved QoL, but a substantial degree of QoL impairment persisted. Since QoL deficits may predict MDD recurrence, attention to ways to support this outcome is required.

The Potential Utility of Aripiprazole Augmentation for Major Depressive Disorder with Mixed Features Specifier: A Retrospective Study

Objective

The present study aimed to observe potential benefit of aripiprazole augmentation in the treatment of major depressive disorder with mixed specifier (MDDM) in naturalistic treatment setting.

Methods

Data were collected from MDDM patients using a retrospective chart review for 8 weeks (week –8 and week 0) in routine practice. All patients were on current antidepressants upon starting of aripiprazole. Patients were treated without restriction of doses of aripiprazole. The primary endpoint was the mean change of Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total scores along with various secondary endpoint measures.

Results

In total 38 patients were analyzed. The changes of MADRS, Clinical Global Impression (CGI)-severity, Young Mania Rating Scale, Sheehan Disability Scale, and CGI-clinical benefit total scores from baseline to the endpoint were −7.1, −0.8, −4.9, −4.1, and −3.6, respectively (all p < 0.0001). At the endpoint, the responder and remitter rates by MADRS score criteria were approximately 32% and 21%, respectively.

Conclusion

The present findings have clearly shown the effectiveness and tolerability of aripiprazole augmentation for MDDM patients in routine practice. The present study warrants subsequent, adequately-powered, well-controlled studies for generalizability near future.

A Pharmacogenomic-based Antidepressant Treatment for Patients with Major Depressive Disorder: Results from an 8-week, Randomized, Single-blinded Clinical Trial

Objective

Pharmacogenomic-based antidepressant treatment (PGATx) may result in more precise pharmacotherapy of major depressive disorder (MDD) with better drug therapy guidance.

Methods

An 8-week, randomized, single-blind clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of PGATx in 100 patients with MDD. All recruited patients were randomly allocated either to PGATx (n=52) or treatment as usual (TAU, n=48) groups. The primary endpoint was a change of total score of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-17 (HAMD-17) from baseline to end of treatment. Response rate (at least 50% reduction in HAMD-17 score from baseline), remission rate (HAMD-17 score ≥7 at the end of treatment) as well as the change of total score of Frequency, Intensity, and Burden of Side Effects Ratings (FIBSER) from baseline to end of treatment were also investigated.

Results

The mean change of HAMD-17 score was significantly different between two groups favoring PGATx by −4.1 point of difference (p=0.010) at the end of treatment. The mean change in the FIBSER score from baseline was significantly different between two treatment groups favoring PGATx by −2.5 point of difference (p=0.028). The response rate (71.7 % vs. 43.6%, p=0.014) were also significantly higher in PGATx than in TAU at the end of treatment, while the remission rate was numerically higher in PGATx than in TAU groups without statistical difference (45.5% vs. 25.6%, p=0.071). The reason for early drop-out associated with adverse events was also numerically higher in TAU (n=9, 50.0%) than in PGATx (n=4, 30.8%).

Conclusion

The present study clearly demonstrate that PGATx may be a better treatment option in the treatment of MDD in terms of effectiveness and tolerability; however, study shortcomings may limit a generalization. Adequately-powered, well-designed, subsequent studies should be mandatory to prove its practicability and clinical utility for routine practice.

The impact of depression medications on oral antidiabetic drug adherence in patients with diabetes and depression

AIMS

To compare adherence and persistence to oral antidiabetic drugs (OAD) between patients who are new users of second generation antipsychotics (SGA) versus new users of other depression therapies in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHODS

Adults 18-64 years with previously-treated T2DM and MDD (past OAD and SSRI/SNRI use) who are new users of SGA or non-SGA therapies (bupropion, lithium, mirtazapine, thyroid hormone, tricyclic antidepressant) were identified in the 2009-2015 MarketScan® Commercial Claims and Encounters database. Multivariate regression models were used to determine the odds of a ≥10% decline in OAD adherence over 180- and 365-days, and time to OAD discontinuation, adjusting for differences between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 8664 (21.5% SGA), 8311 (22.1% SGA), and 17,524 (21.3% SGA) patients met inclusion criteria for the 180-day adherence, 365-day adherence, and persistence cohorts, respectively. Over 180-days, 16.6% of SGA and 13.3% of non-SGA initiators had a ≥10% decline in OAD adherence (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 1.41, 95% CI 1.21-1.63). Over 365-days, 22.3% of SGA and 18.9% of non-SGA initiators had a ≥ 10% decline (OR = 1.34, 95% CI 1.17-1.53). Time to OAD discontinuation was similar between groups (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.03, 95% CI 0.94-1.12).

CONCLUSION

Use of SGA was associated with a 1.3-1.4 times higher odds of a ≥10% decline in OAD adherence. Adherence to OAD is critical for optimal diabetes control and reductions in this magnitude may impact A1C. Close monitoring of OAD adherence after SGA initiation is warranted.

Associations Between Medication Class and Subsequent Augmentation of Depression Treatment in Privately Insured US Adults

IMPORTANCE

Treatment augmentation is an important clinical decision in the pharmacotherapy for depression, yet few studies have examined the rates of treatment augmentation by medication class.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to examine which initial pharmacotherapies for depression are more likely than others to result in subsequent treatment augmentation.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective cohort analysis of administrative data of 214,705 privately insured US adults between the age of 18 and 64 years who were diagnosed with a new episode of depression in 2009. Propensity score-adjusted logistic regression and Cox regression were used to model the effect of the class of initial monotherapy on treatment augmentation. Risk adjustors included depression severity, comorbidities, provider type, insurance, and demographic characteristics.

EXPOSURE

The class of initial monotherapy and the health care provider type were the main independent variables of interest.

MAIN OUTCOME

The outcome was the augmentation of monotherapy.

RESULTS

Thirty-four percent of individuals received treatment augmentation. Compared with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor monotherapy, second-generation antipsychotics as the initial treatment were associated with significant increase in the likelihood of augmentation compared with the other classes (hazards ratio, 2.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.51-2.68). This result was corroborated after propensity score adjustment (odds ratio, 2.85; 95% CI, 2.70-3.00) when comparing second-generation antipsychotics to the other classes of pharmacotherapy. The other significant predictor of treatment augmentation was the provider type. Mental health specialists were 27% more likely to augment a treatment compared with generalists (hazards ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.25-1.30).

CONCLUSIONS

The type of initial antidepressant therapy is associated with the chances of treatment augmentation. Second-generation antipsychotics progressed to augmentation more rapidly than the other classes.

Optimizing the Use of Aripiprazole Augmentation in the Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder: From Clinical Trials to Clinical Practice

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a recurrent, chronic, and devastating disorder leading to serious impairment in functional capacity as well as increasing public health care costs. In the previous decade, switching therapy and dose adjustment of ongoing antidepressants was the most frequently chosen subsequent treatment option for MDD. However, such recommendations were not based on firmly proven efficacy data from well-designed, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) but on practical grounds and clinical reasoning. Aripiprazole augmentation has been dramatically increasing in clinical practice owing to its unique action mechanisms as well as proven efficacy and safety from adequately powered and well-controlled RCTs. Despite the increased use of aripiprazole in depression, limited clinical information and knowledge interfere with proper and efficient use of aripiprazole augmentation for MDD. The objective of the present review was to enhance clinicians' current understanding of aripiprazole augmentation and how to optimize the use of this therapy in the treatment of MDD.

Aripiprazole augmentation versus antidepressant switching for patients with major depressive disorder: A 6-week, randomized, rater-blinded, prospective study

No study has directly compared the efficacy and tolerability of aripiprazole augmentation (AA) and antidepressant switching (SW) in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). This is the first 6-week, randomized, rater-blinded, direct comparison study between AA and SW in outpatients. An inadequate response to antidepressants was defined as a total score ≥ 14 on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-item 17 (HDRS-17) despite adequate antidepressant dosage for at least 6 weeks in the current depressive episode. The primary endpoint was change in the total score of the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) from baseline to the end of treatment. Secondary efficacy measures included the response and remission rates as priori defined at the end of treatment: changes in total scores of the HDRS-17, Iowa Fatigue Scale (IFS), and Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) from baseline to the end of treatment and the proportion of patients who scored 1 or 2 on the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement Score (CGI-I) at the end of treatment. Tolerability was assessed with the Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale (BARS) and Arizona Sexual dysfunction scale (ASEX), and the numbers of adverse events were compared between the two groups. A total of 101 patients were randomized to either AA (n = 52) or SW (n = 49). The mean change in the MADRS score from baseline was significantly higher in the AA, with a difference in magnitude of -8.7 (p < 0.0001). The intergroup difference was first evident in week 2. The numbers of responders (p = 0.0086) and remitters (p = 0.0005) were also significantly higher in the AA (60% and 54%, respectively) compared with the SW (32.6% and 19.6%, respectively). On most secondary endpoints, AA showed better clinical outcomes compared to SW. The tolerability profiles were comparable between the two groups. Overall, AA yielded potentially beneficial clinical outcomes compared to SW. Given the methodological shortcomings of the present study, adequately powered, more rigorously controlled clinical trials are strongly warranted to confirm the present findings.

The potential role of atypical antipsychotics for the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder

Despite the fact that the majority of currently available treatment guidelines propose antidepressants as the first-line pharmacological therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a substantial portion of patients fail to show an adequate response following this type of treatment. In this context, a number of small, open-label studies and randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) have found atypical antipsychotics (AAs) to be a beneficial treatment for patients with PTSD. Thus, the present meta-analysis was conducted to enhance the sample size power and further the current understanding of the role of AAs for the treatment of PTSD. An extensive search of several databases identified 12 appropriate RCTs and available data from 9 of these (n = 497) were included in the final meta-analysis. AAs may have potential benefits for the treatment of PTSD as indicated by changes from baseline of the total score on the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS; standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.289, 95% confidence intervals [CIs] = -0.471, -0.106), P = 0.002). Additionally, AAs were found to be significantly more effective (P < 0.0001) than a placebo in terms of change from baseline for the intrusion sub-score on the CAPS (SMD = -0.373, 95% CIs = -0.568, -0.178) but there were no significant reductions for the avoidance and hyperarousal sub-symptoms. The responder rate and rate of improvement of depressive symptoms were also significantly higher in the AA group than the placebo group (P = 0.004 and P < 0.0001, respectively). However, the present results should be interpreted carefully and be translated into clinical practice only with due consideration of the limited quality and quantity of existing RCTs included in this analysis.

Aripiprazole augmentation, antidepressant combination or switching therapy in patients with major depressive disorder who are partial- or non-responsive to current antidepressants: a multi-center, naturalistic study

There has been no studies comparing the clinical benefits of aripiprazole augmentation (AT), antidepressant combination (AC), and switching to a different antidepressant (SW) in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) patients partially or not responding to an initial antidepressant. AT, AC, or SW was chosen by patients. The primary efficacy measure was the proportion of patients showing an improvement in the Clinical Global Impression-Clinical Benefit (CGI-CB) score at week 8. Secondary efficacy measures included changes in CGI-CB, CGI-Severity (S) and subjective satisfaction scores. Remission and responder analysis were also employed. A total of 295 patients were enrolled. The most preferred strategy was AT (n = 156, 52.9%), followed by AC (n = 93, 31.5%) and SW (n = 46, 15.6%). The improver was significantly higher in AT (74.1%) compared with AC (48.1%; p < 0.001) and similar to SW (73.5%, p = 0.948), whereas no significant difference was found between AC and SW. Similar results were also found in the most secondary endpoint measures proving a superiority of AT over AC without differences between AT and SW. Tolerability profiles were similar across the three groups; however, the mean weight gain for SW (-0.1 kg) was significantly less than that for AC (1.3 kg, p < 0.05). Patients preferred AT to AC or SW when an antidepressant was ineffective in treating their depression. Among the three treatment strategies, overall AT yielded greater clinical benefit than did AC and SW. Adequately powered, well-controlled clinical trials are strongly warranted to confirm our findings due to methodological shortcomings.