Diagnostic determinants of response to treatment with tricyclic antidepressants: a polydiagnostic approach

Circadian markers as a predictor of response in the treatment of depression-A systematic review

Despite many available treatment options for depression, response rates remain suboptimal. To improve outcome, circadian markers may be suitable as markers of treatment response. This systematic review provides an overview of circadian markers that have been studied as predictors of response in treatment of depression. A search was performed (EMBASE, PUBMED, PSYCHINFO) for research studies or articles, randomized controlled trials and case report/series with no time boundaries on March 2, 2024 (PROSPERO: CRD42021252333). Other criteria were; an antidepressant treatment as intervention, treatment response measured by depression symptom severity and/or occurrence of a clinical diagnosis of depression and assessment of a circadian marker at baseline. 44 articles, encompassing 8,772 participants were included in the analysis. Although additional research is needed with less variation in types of markers and treatments to provide definitive recommendations, circadian markers, especially diurnal mood variation and chronotype, show potential to implement as response markers in the clinic.

Neurocognitive function of patients with melancholic and non-melancholic major depressive episodes: An exploratory study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this exploratory study was to compare the neurocognitive performance of patients undergoing melancholic and non-melancholic major depressive episodes. Considering potential limitations of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.) specifier, we employed an additional tool that has proven useful in identifying melancholia (the Sydney Melancholia Prototype Index).

METHODS

One hundred forty-one depressed inpatients were classified as melancholic or non-melancholic according to the Sydney Melancholia Prototype Index and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.) criteria and compared on a neurocognitive battery selected to assess attention and processing speed, verbal memory, working memory and executive functions. Results were controlled for several potential confounders.

RESULTS

Patients diagnosed as melancholic by the two diagnostic systems displayed lower scores in executive measures, semantic verbal fluency and phonological verbal fluency. On attention and processing speed, patients with melancholia underperformed those with non-melancholic depression only when diagnosed by the Sydney Melancholia Prototype Index. After controlling for confounders, associations between melancholic status and executive dysfunction remained significant for the Sydney Melancholia Prototype Index but not for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.) diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

In this study, melancholia diagnosed by the Sydney Melancholia Prototype Index (but not by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [5th ed.] criteria) was characterized by a greater compromise of tests assessing executive functions than non-melancholic depressions, even after controlling for depressive severity. These preliminary results might contribute to generating hypotheses about differences in the cognitive profile and pathophysiological substrate between melancholic and non-melancholic depressions. Likewise, the pattern of findings supports the hypothesis that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.) melancholia specifier might identify more severe forms of depressive episodes rather than a qualitatively different subtype.

A quantitative review on outcome-to-antidepressants in melancholic unipolar depression

The aim of this study was to explore outcome to antidepressants profile in melancholic unipolar depression. We conducted a systematic review of electronic databases and meta-analysis of randomized and nonrandomized trials comparing: 1) outcome to antidepressants and placebo between melancholic and non-melancholic depression; 2) outcome to different antidepressant classes in melancholic depression. Two outcomes were considered: clinical remission and response. Significant lower odds of remission to antidepressants in melancholic than in non-melancholic depressions were found. Although no significant differences were observed in the response to antidepressants between both subtypes of depression, those with melancholic features had lower odds of response to placebo. Finally, treatment of melancholic depression with serotonin reuptake inhibitors was associated with lower odds of remission compared with tricyclic antidepressants, and similar outcome compared with venlafaxine. Melancholia seems to show a differential pattern of outcome to antidepressants, which could be clinically valuable for a better implementation of personalized medicine of depression. Due to several limitations, further research is needed to support these preliminary findings.

Amitriptyline for depression

BACKGROUND

For many years amitriptyline has been considered one of the reference compounds for the pharmacological treatment of depression. However, new tricyclic drugs, heterocyclic compounds and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors have been introduced on the market with the claim of a more favourable tolerability/efficacy profile.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present systematic review was to investigate the tolerability and efficacy of amitriptyline in comparison with the other tricyclic/heterocyclic antidepressants and with the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR-Studies) was searched on 28-11-2005. Reference lists of all included studies were checked.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised controlled trials were included. Study participants were of either sex and any age with a primary diagnosis of depression. Included trials compared amitriptyline with another tricyclic/heterocyclic antidepressant or with one of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted using a standardised form. The number of patients undergoing the randomisation procedure, the number of patients who completed the study and the number of improved patients were extracted. In addition, group mean scores at the end of the trial on Hamilton Depression Scale or any other depression scale were extracted. In the tolerability analysis, the number of patients failing to complete the study and the number of patients complaining of side-effects were extracted.

MAIN RESULTS

A total number of 194 studies were included in the review. The estimate of the overall odds ratio (OR) for responders showed that more subjects responded to amitriptyline in comparison with the control antidepressant group (OR 1.12 to 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 1.23, number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) = 50). The estimate of the efficacy of amitriptyline and control agents on a continuous outcome revealed an effect size which also significantly favoured amitriptyline (Standardised Mean Difference (SMD) 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.23). Whilst these differences are statistically significant, their clinical significance is less clear. When the efficacy analysis was stratified by drug class, no difference in outcome emerged between amitriptyline and either tricyclic or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor comparators. The dropout rate in patients taking amitriptyline and control agents was similar; however, the estimate of the proportion of patients who experienced side-effects significantly favoured control agents in comparison with amitriptyline (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.74). When the tolerability analysis was stratified by drug class, the dropout rate in patients taking amitriptyline and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors significantly favoured the latter (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.95, number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) = 40). When the responder analysis was stratified by study setting amitriptyline was more effective than control antidepressants in inpatients (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.42, NNTB = 24), but not in outpatients (OR 1.01, 95%CI 0.88 to 1.17, NNTB = 200).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This present systematic review indicates that amitriptyline is at least as efficacious as other tricyclics or newer compounds. However, the burden of side-effects in patients receiving it was greater. In comparison with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors amitriptyline was less well tolerated, and although counterbalanced by a higher proportion of responders, the difference was not statistically significant.

Amitriptyline versus other types of pharmacotherapy for depression

BACKGROUND

For many years amitriptyline has been considered one of the reference compounds for the pharmacological treatment of depression. However, new tricyclic drugs, heterocyclic compounds and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors have been introduced on the market with the claim of a more favourable tolerability/efficacy profile.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present systematic review was to investigate the tolerability and efficacy of amitriptyline in comparison with the other tricyclic/heterocyclic antidepressants and with the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register (2002-3) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched. Key journals and conference abstracts were handsearched. Pharmaceutical companies were contacted for information on unpublished materials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised controlled trials were included. Study participants were of either sex and any age with a primary diagnosis of depression. Included trials compared amitriptyline with another tricyclic/heterocyclic antidepressant or with one of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted using a standardised form. The number of patients undergoing the randomisation procedure, the number of patients who completed the study and the number of improved patients were extracted. In addition, group mean scores at the end of the trial on Hamilton Depression Scale or any other depression scale were extracted. In the tolerability analysis, the number of patients failing to complete the study and the number of patients complaining of side-effects was extracted.

MAIN RESULTS

The estimate of the overall odds ratio for responders showed that more subjects responded to amitriptyline in comparison with the control antidepressant group (odds ratio 1.12, 95% confidence interval 1.01, 1.23, number needed to treat 50). The estimate of the efficacy of amitriptyline and control agents on a continuous outcome revealed an effect size which also significantly favoured amitriptyline (Standardised Mean Difference 0.13, 95% confidence interval 0.04, 0.23). Whilst these differences are statistically significant, their clinical significance is less clear. When the efficacy analysis was stratified by drug class, no difference in outcome emerged between amitriptyline and either tricyclic or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor comparators. The dropout rate in patients taking amitriptyline and control agents was similar; however, the estimate of the proportion of patients who experienced side-effects significantly favoured control agents in comparison with amitriptyline (odds ratio 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.56, 0.71). When the tolerability analysis was stratified by drug class, the dropout rate in patients taking amitriptyline and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors significantly favoured the latter (odds ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.75,0.95, number needed to harm 40). When the responder analysis was stratified by study setting amitriptyline was more effective than control ADs in inpatients (odds ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 1.04, 1.42, number needed to treat 24), but not in outpatients (odds ratio 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.88, 1.17, number needed to treat = 200).

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

This present systematic review indicates that amitriptyline is at least as efficacious as other tricyclics or newer compounds. However, the burden of side-effects in patients receiving it was greater. In comparison with the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors amitriptyline was less well tolerated, and although counterbalanced by a higher proportion of responders, the difference was not statistically significant.

Amitriptyline v. the rest: still the leading antidepressant after 40 years of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Tricyclic antidepressants have similar efficacy and slightly lower tolerability than selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). However, there are no systematic reviews assessing amitriptyline, the reference tricyclic drug, v. other tricyclics and SSRIs directly.

AIMS

To review the tolerability and efficacy of amitriptyline in the management of depression.

METHOD

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing amitriptyline with other tricyclics/heterocyclics or with an SSRI.

RESULTS

We reviewed 186 RCTs. The overall estimate of the efficacy of amitriptyline revealed a standardised mean difference of 0.147 (95% CI 0.05-0.243), significantly favouring amitriptyline. The overall OR for dropping out was 0.99 (95% CI 0.91-1.08) and that for side-effects was 0.62 (95% CI 0.54-0.70), favouring the control drugs. With drop-outs included as treatment failures, the estimate of the effectiveness of amitriptyline v. tricyclics/heterocyclics and SSRIs showed a 2.5% difference in the proportion of responders in favour of amitriptyline (number needed to treat 40, CI 21-694; OR 1.12 (95% CI 1.01-1.24)).

CONCLUSIONS

Amitriptyline is less well tolerated than tricyclics/heterocyclics and SSRIs, but slightly more patients treated on it recover than on alternative antidepressants.

Predictors of response to amine-specific antidepressants

Discriminant function analysis of data from a double-blind comparative trial of lofepramine (a noradrenaline-specific reuptake inhibitor) and fluoxetine (a serotonin-specific reuptake inhibitor), involving 183 patients was used to identify predictors of response. Psychic anxiety significantly predicted a positive response to antidepressant medication, whereas psychomotor retardation, observed sadness, subjective lassitude and somatic complaints were significant predictors of nonresponse. Age, gender, endogenicity, duration of illness and number of previous episodes were not predictive of response. Significant differences were found between predictors of response to fluoxetine and lofepramine (P < 0.001 all groups). Predictors of response to lofepramine were similar to overall predictors, i.e., psychic anxiety predicted responders whilst observed sadness, psychomotor retardation, lassitude, inability to feel and somatic complaints predicted nonresponders. In contrast, baseline weight loss predicted response to fluoxetine, whereas anxiety, reduced insight and a tendency to blame others significantly predicted nonresponse. Such findings have practical implications for the management of depressive illness.

Disturbances of vital feelings in depressive disorders

The concept of "vital depression" as a disturbance of the vital feelings (K. Schneider) has recently been considered. While a vital-depressive syndrome is now widespread in currently valid classification systems, its contribution toward discrimination of depressive disorders and prediction of successful antidepressive pharmacotherapy is questionable. The psychological presuppositions of vital feelings are outlined with reference to Scheler's subdivision of emotional life into layers. Means of psychopathological access to the vital feelings are presented, based on the examples of "vital sadness" and "vital anxiety" in depressive disorders.

Multidiagnostic evaluation of prolactin response to haloperidol challenge in schizophrenia: maximal blunting in Kraepelinian patients

We have previously reported that prolactin (PRL) responses to haloperidol 0.5 mg IV were blunted in subjects characterized by several diagnostic systems of schizophrenia compared to controls (Keks et al 1990). However, an attempt to find a diagnostic system most different from controls was unsuccessful due to inherent difficulties in the statistical analysis of multidiagnostic data. In this paper we present new methodologies. A test for differences in dependent correlations demonstrated that most of the variance in stimulated PRL was accounted for by Kraepelinian, and least by Schneiderian and M. Bleulerian, schizophrenias (p < 0.001). The main symptomatic difference between nonKraepelinian and Kraepelinian patients was the presence of association disturbance and feelings of passivity. Patients with both symptoms had a lower stimulated PRL than controls. Further findings and possible implications are discussed.

The interface of clinical psychopharmacology and psychopathology

Four areas of common interest for clinical psychopharmacology and psychopathology are identified: (1) the diagnostic-based approach in clinical psychopharmacology; (2) the characterization of psychotropic drugs according the main psychopathologically defined target symptoms; (3) prediction of treatment response; (4) development of rating scales. The current state of research strategies in these areas is discussed and the need for new strategies is stressed. In particular, diagnosis-based research strategies in clinical psychopharmacology are not fully justified by empirical data; an alternative approach is discussed.