Impact of Prior Treatment on Remission of Late-Life Depression with Venlafaxine and Subsequent Aripiprazole or Placebo Augmentation

Update on the assessment of resistance to antidepressant treatment: Rationale for the Antidepressant Treatment History Form: Short Form-2 (ATHF-SF2)

All definitions of treatment-resistant depression (TRD) require that patients have experienced insufficient benefit from one or more adequate antidepressant trials. Thus, identifying "failed, adequate trials" is key to the assessment of TRD. The Antidepressant Treatment History Form (ATHF) was one of the first and most widely used instruments that provided objective criteria in making these assessments. The original ATHF was updated in 2018 to the ATHF-SF, changing to a checklist format for scoring, and including specific pharmacotherapy, brain stimulation, and psychotherapy interventions as potentially adequate antidepressant treatments. The ATHF-SF2, presented here, is based on the consensus of the ATHF workgroup about the novel interventions introduced since the last revision and which should/should not be considered effective treatments for major depressive episodes. This document describes the rationale for these choices and, for each intervention, the minimal criteria for determining the adequacy of treatment administration. The Supplementary Material that accompanies this article provide the Scoring Checklist, Data Collection Forms (current episode and composite of previous episodes), and Instruction Manual for the ATHF-SF2.

Examining the correlation between treatment effects in clinical trials and economic modelling

INTRODUCTION

Many diseases have a sequential treatment pathway. Compared with patients without previous treatment, patients who fail initial treatment may have lower success rates with a second treatment. This phenomenon can be explained by a correlation between treatment effects.

METHODS

We developed a statistical model of covariance for the underlying unobserved correlation between treatments and established a mathematical expression for the magnitude of the latent correlation term. We conducted a simulation study of clinical trials to investigate the correlation between two treatments and explored clinical examples based on published literature to illustrate the identification and evaluation of these correlations.

RESULTS

Our simulation study confirmed that a treatment correlation reduces the probability of success for the second treatment, compared with no correlation. We found that treatment correlations may be observable in clinical trials, such as for depression and lung cancer, and the magnitude of correlation may be estimated. We illustrated that treatment correlations can be incorporated into an economic model, with possible impacts on cost-effectiveness results. Additional applications of correlation concepts are also discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

We evaluated the correlation between treatment effects and our approach can be applied to clinical trial design and economic modelling of sequential clinical treatment pathways.

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Indices of Cortical Excitability Enhance the Prediction of Response to Pharmacotherapy in Late-Life Depression

BACKGROUND

Older adults with late-life depression (LLD) often experience incomplete or lack of response to first-line pharmacotherapy. The treatment of LLD could be improved using objective biological measures to predict response. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) can be used to measure cortical excitability, inhibition, and plasticity, which have been implicated in LLD pathophysiology and associated with brain stimulation treatment outcomes in younger adults with depression. TMS measures have not yet been investigated as predictors of treatment outcomes in LLD or pharmacotherapy outcomes in adults of any age with depression.

METHODS

We assessed whether pretreatment single-pulse and paired-pulse TMS measures, combined with clinical and demographic measures, predict venlafaxine treatment response in 76 outpatients with LLD. We compared the predictive performance of machine learning models including or excluding TMS predictors.

RESULTS

Two single-pulse TMS measures predicted venlafaxine response: cortical excitability (neuronal membrane excitability) and the variability of cortical excitability (dynamic fluctuations in excitability levels). In cross-validation, models using a combination of these TMS predictors, clinical markers of treatment resistance, and age classified patients with 73% ± 11% balanced accuracy (average correct classification rate of responders and nonresponders; permutation testing, p < .005); these models significantly outperformed (corrected t test, p = .025) models using clinical and demographic predictors alone (60% ± 10% balanced accuracy).

CONCLUSIONS

These preliminary findings suggest that single-pulse TMS measures of cortical excitability may be useful predictors of response to pharmacotherapy in LLD. Future studies are needed to confirm these findings and determine whether combining TMS predictors with other biomarkers further improves the accuracy of predicting LLD treatment outcome.

Safety, Tolerability, and Real-World Effectiveness of Intravenous Ketamine in Older Adults With Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Case Series

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety, tolerability, and effectiveness of repeated doses of intravenous (IV) ketamine in older adults (i.e., ≥60 years of age) with treatment-resistant depression.

METHOD

In this case series, fifty-three older adults (M_age = 67, SD = 6; 57% female [n = 30]) received 4 IV ketamine infusions, administered over 1-2 weeks. Effectiveness of IV ketamine was measured using the Quick Inventory for Depressive Symptomatology-Self Report 16 (QIDS-SR16) approximately 2 days after infusions 1-3, and 1-2 weeks after infusion 4. Safety was measured as hemodynamic changes before, during, immediately after, and 20 minutes after each infusion. Tolerability was assessed via systematic reporting of treatment-emergent adverse events during and after each infusion, in addition to symptoms of dissociation measured using the Clinician Administered Dissociative States Scale. Partial response (25%-50% symptomatic improvement from baseline), response (≥50% symptomatic improvement from baseline), clinically significant improvements (≥25% symptomatic improvement from baseline), and remission rates (QIDS-SR16 ≤5) were also calculated.

RESULTS

Participants reported significant decreases in depressive symptoms (i.e., as measured by the QIDS-SR16) with repeated ketamine infusions (F(4, 92) = 7.412, p <0.001). The mean QIDS-SR16 score was 17.12 (SD = 5.33) at baseline and decreased to 12.52 (SD = 5.79) following 4 infusions. After 4 infusions, 31% (n = 8) of participants partially responded to IV ketamine, 27% (n = 7) responded, 58% (n = 15) experienced clinically significant improvements, and 10% (n = 3) met remission criteria. Thirty-six participants (69%) experienced treatment-emergent hypertension during at least 1 infusion, and 10 (19%) required intervention with an antihypertensive. Drowsiness was the most commonly reported adverse event (50% of infusions; n = 73).

CONCLUSION

Ketamine was associated with transient treatment-emergent hypertension. Response and remission rates were comparable to those reported in general adult samples. Findings are limited by the open-label, chart review nature of this study.

Pharmacological interventions for treatment-resistant depression in adults

BACKGROUND

Although antidepressants are often a first-line treatment for adults with moderate to severe depression, many people do not respond adequately to medication, and are said to have treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Little evidence exists to inform the most appropriate 'next step' treatment for these people.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of standard pharmacological treatments for adults with TRD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR) (March 2016), CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science (31 December 2018), the World Health Organization trials portal and ClinicalTrials.gov for unpublished and ongoing studies, and screened bibliographies of included studies and relevant systematic reviews without date or language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with participants aged 18 to 74 years with unipolar depression (based on criteria from DSM-IV-TR or earlier versions, International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10, Feighner criteria or Research Diagnostic Criteria) who had not responded to a minimum of four weeks of antidepressant treatment at a recommended dose. Interventions were: (1) increasing the dose of antidepressant monotherapy; (2) switching to a different antidepressant monotherapy; (3) augmenting treatment with another antidepressant; (4) augmenting treatment with a non-antidepressant. All were compared with continuing antidepressant monotherapy. We excluded studies of non-standard pharmacological treatments (e.g. sex hormones, vitamins, herbal medicines and food supplements).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers used standard Cochrane methods to extract data, assess risk of bias, and resolve disagreements. We analysed continuous outcomes with mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated a relative risk (RR) and 95% CI. Where sufficient data existed, we conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 RCTs (2731 participants). Nine were conducted in outpatient settings and one in both in- and outpatients. Mean age of participants ranged from 42 - 50.2 years, and most were female. One study investigated switching to, or augmenting current antidepressant treatment with, another antidepressant (mianserin). Another augmented current antidepressant treatment with the antidepressant mirtazapine. Eight studies augmented current antidepressant treatment with a non-antidepressant (either an anxiolytic (buspirone) or an antipsychotic (cariprazine; olanzapine; quetiapine (3 studies); or ziprasidone (2 studies)). We judged most studies to be at a low or unclear risk of bias. Only one of the included studies was not industry-sponsored. There was no evidence of a difference in depression severity when current treatment was switched to mianserin (MD on Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) = -1.8, 95% CI -5.22 to 1.62, low-quality evidence)) compared with continuing on antidepressant monotherapy. Nor was there evidence of a difference in numbers dropping out of treatment (RR 2.08, 95% CI 0.94 to 4.59, low-quality evidence; dropouts 38% in the mianserin switch group; 18% in the control). Augmenting current antidepressant treatment with mianserin was associated with an improvement in depression symptoms severity scores from baseline (MD on HAM-D -4.8, 95% CI -8.18 to -1.42; moderate-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in numbers dropping out (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.72; low-quality evidence; 19% dropouts in the mianserin-augmented group; 38% in the control). When current antidepressant treatment was augmented with mirtazapine, there was little difference in depressive symptoms (MD on Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) -1.7, 95% CI -4.03 to 0.63; high-quality evidence) and no evidence of a difference in dropout numbers (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.62; dropouts 2% in mirtazapine-augmented group; 3% in the control). Augmentation with buspirone provided no evidence of a benefit in terms of a reduction in depressive symptoms (MD on Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) -0.30, 95% CI -9.48 to 8.88; low-quality evidence) or numbers of drop-outs (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.53; low-quality evidence; dropouts 11% in buspirone-augmented group; 19% in the control). Severity of depressive symptoms reduced when current treatment was augmented with cariprazine (MD on MADRS -1.50, 95% CI -2.74 to -0.25; high-quality evidence), olanzapine (MD on HAM-D -7.9, 95% CI -16.76 to 0.96; low-quality evidence; MD on MADRS -12.4, 95% CI -22.44 to -2.36; low-quality evidence), quetiapine (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.18; I2 = 6%, high-quality evidence), or ziprasidone (MD on HAM-D -2.73, 95% CI -4.53 to -0.93; I2 = 0, moderate-quality evidence) compared with continuing on antidepressant monotherapy. However, a greater number of participants dropped out when antidepressant monotherapy was augmented with an antipsychotic (cariprazine RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.41; quetiapine RR 1.57, 95% CI: 1.14 to 2.17; ziprasidone RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.55) compared with antidepressant monotherapy, although estimates for olanzapine augmentation were imprecise (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.69). Dropout rates ranged from 10% to 39% in the groups augmented with an antipsychotic, and from 12% to 23% in the comparison groups. The most common reasons for dropping out were side effects or adverse events. We also summarised data about response and remission rates (based on changes in depressive symptoms) for included studies, along with data on social adjustment and social functioning, quality of life, economic outcomes and adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A small body of evidence shows that augmenting current antidepressant therapy with mianserin or with an antipsychotic (cariprazine, olanzapine, quetiapine or ziprasidone) improves depressive symptoms over the short-term (8 to 12 weeks). However, this evidence is mostly of low or moderate quality due to imprecision of the estimates of effects. Improvements with antipsychotics need to be balanced against the increased likelihood of dropping out of treatment or experiencing an adverse event. Augmentation of current antidepressant therapy with a second antidepressant, mirtazapine, does not produce a clinically important benefit in reduction of depressive symptoms (high-quality evidence). The evidence regarding the effects of augmenting current antidepressant therapy with buspirone or switching current antidepressant treatment to mianserin is currently insufficient. Further trials are needed to increase the certainty of these findings and to examine long-term effects of treatment, as well as the effectiveness of other pharmacological treatment strategies.

The assessment of resistance to antidepressant treatment: Rationale for the Antidepressant Treatment History Form: Short Form (ATHF-SF)

There is considerable diversity in how treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is defined. However, every definition incorporates the concept that patients with TRD have not benefited sufficiently from one or more adequate trials of antidepressant treatment. This review examines the issues fundamental to the systematic evaluation of antidepressant treatment adequacy and resistance. These issues include the domains of interventions deemed effective in treatment of major depressive episodes (e.g., pharmacotherapy, brain stimulation, and psychotherapy), the subgroups of patients for whom distinct adequacy criteria are needed (e.g., bipolar vs. unipolar depression, psychotic vs. nonpsychotic depression), whether trials should be rated dichotomously as adequate or inadequate or on a potency continuum, whether combination and augmentation strategies require specific consideration, and the criteria used to evaluate the adequacy of treatment delivery (e.g., dose, duration), trial adherence, and clinical outcome. This review also presents the Antidepressant Treatment History Form: Short-Form (ATHF-SF), a completely revised version of an earlier instrument, and details how these fundamental issues were addressed in the ATHF-SF.

The effect of diet, lifestyle and psychological factors in the prognosis of ischemic heart failure

Background/Objective

Dietary patterns may play an important role in the prognosis of heart failure.

Methods

Dietary habits, sleeping habits, physical activity and anxiety and depression status were recorded in 326 patients (90 females, mean age 73.45 ± 10.9 years) with ischemic heart failure prospectively followed for 30 months.

Results

Lower ΗADS-depression scores (p = 0.03), a low-fat meat diet (p = 0.035) and moderate coffee consumption (p = 0.005) were associated with better prognosis. Non-significant differences were recorded in outcomes with regard to consumption of other dietary categories.

Conclusions

A balanced diet as well as emphasis on the treatment of depression may improve outcomes in ischemic heart failure.

•

Coffee consumption is associated with better outcomes in ischemic heart failure.

•

A low fat meat diet is associated with better outcomes in ischemic heart failure.

•

High ΗADS depression score is related to worst prognosis in ischemic heart failure.

•

Sedentary lifestyle is related to worst outcomes in ischemic heart failure.

Predictors of treatment outcome in depression in later life: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Predictor analyses of late-life depression can be used to identify variables associated with outcomes of treatments, and hence ways of tailoring specific treatments to patients. The aim of this review was to systematically identify, review and meta-analyse predictors of outcomes of any type of treatment for late-life depression.

METHODS

Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science and PsycINFO were searched for studies published up to December 2016. Primary and secondary studies reported treatment predictors from randomised controlled trials of any treatment for patients with major depressive disorder aged over 60 were included. Treatment outcomes included response, remission and change in depression score.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Of 65 identified statistically significant predictors, only 7 were reported in at least 3 studies. Of these, 5 were included in meta-analyses, and only 3 were statistically significant. Most studies were rated as being of moderate to strong quality and satisfied key quality criteria for predictor analyses.

LIMITATIONS

The searches were limited to randomised controlled trials and most of the included studies were secondary analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline depression severity, co-morbid anxiety, executive dysfunction, current episode duration, early improvement, physical illnesses and age were reported as statistically significant predictors of treatment outcomes. Only the first three were significant in meta-analyses. Subgroup analyses showed differences in predictor effect between biological and psychosocial treatment. However, high heterogeneity and small study numbers suggest a cautious interpretation of results. These predictors were associated with various mechanisms including brain pathophysiology, perceived social support and proposed distinct types of depressive disorder. Further investigation of the clinical utility of these predictors is suggested.

Combining moderators to identify clinical profiles of patients who will, and will not, benefit from aripiprazole augmentation for treatment resistant late-life major depressive disorder

Personalizing treatment for late-life depression requires identifying and integrating information from multiple factors that influence treatment efficacy (moderators). We performed exploratory moderator analyses using data from a multi-site, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of aripiprazole augmentation. Patients (n = 159) aged ≥60 years had major depressive disorder that failed to remit with venlafaxine monotherapy. We examined effect sizes of 39 potential moderators of aripiprazole (vs. placebo) augmentation efficacy using the outcome of percentage reduction in depressive symptom after 12 weeks. We then incorporated information from the individually relevant variables in combined moderators. A larger aripiprazole treatment effect was related to: white race, better physical function, better performance on Trail-Making, attention, immediate, and delayed memory tests, greater psychomotor agitation and suicidality symptoms, and a history of adequate antidepressant pharmacotherapy. A smaller aripiprazole treatment effect was observed in patients with: more pain and more work/activity impairment and libido symptoms. Combining information from race and Trail-Making test performance (base combined moderator (Mb*)) produced a larger effect size (Spearman effect size = 0.29 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.15, 0.42)) than any individual moderator. Adding other individually relevant moderators in the full combined moderator (Mf*) further improved effect size (Spearman effect size = 0.39 (95% CI: 0.25, 0.52)) and identified a sub-group benefiting more from placebo plus continuation venlafaxine monotherapy than adjunctive aripiprazole. Combining moderators can help clinicians personalize depression treatment. We found the majority of our patients benefited from adjunctive aripiprazole, but a smaller subgroup that is identifiable using clinical measures appeared to benefit more from continuation venlafaxine plus placebo.