Noradrenergic dysfunction and antidepressant treatment response

Targeting Inflammatory-Mitochondrial Response in Major Depression: Current Evidence and Further Challenges

The prevalence of psychiatric disorders has increased in recent years. Among existing mental disorders, major depressive disorder (MDD) has emerged as one of the leading causes of disability worldwide, affecting individuals throughout their lives. Currently, MDD affects 15% of adults in the Americas. Over the past 50 years, pharmacotherapy, psychotherapy, and brain stimulation have been used to treat MDD. The most common approach is still pharmacotherapy; however, studies show that about 40% of patients are refractory to existing treatments. Although the monoamine hypothesis has been widely accepted as a molecular mechanism to explain the etiology of depression, its relationship with other biochemical phenomena remains only partially understood. This is the case of the link between MDD and inflammation, mitochondrial dysfunction, and oxidative stress. Studies have found that depressive patients usually exhibit altered inflammatory markers, mitochondrial membrane depolarization, oxidized mitochondrial DNA, and thus high levels of both central and peripheral reactive oxygen species (ROS). The effect of antidepressants on these events remains unclear. Nevertheless, the effects of ROS on the brain are well known, including lipid peroxidation of neuronal membranes, accumulation of peroxidation products in neurons, protein and DNA damage, reduced antioxidant defenses, apoptosis induction, and neuroinflammation. Antioxidants such as ascorbic acid, tocopherols, and coenzyme Q have shown promise in some depressive patients, but without consensus on their efficacy. Hence, this paper provides a review of MDD and its association with inflammation, mitochondrial dysfunction, and oxidative stress and is aimed at thoroughly discussing the putative links between these events, which may contribute to the design and development of new therapeutic approaches for patients.

Treatment goals: response and nonresponse

Psychiatric symptomatology is often subjective, but it can be partly made more objective for the purposes of evaluation. Esquirol was the first modern psychiatrist to stress the need for a scientific approach to treatment evaluation. The kinetics of treatment is complex because different components of the clinical picture improve at a different pace. Assessment of treatment requires prior definition of end point, response, and nonresponse. Response is influenced by several factors, such as placebo effect, diagnostic category and subtypes, and patient heterogeneity. Treatment response may be predicted from clinical and biological parameters. This article lists the main causes of nonresponse, and suggests how to remedy them.

Current perspectives of the roles of the central norepinephrine system in anxiety and depression

Norepinephrine (NE) is a major monoamine neurotransmitter that has widespread effects across multiple brain areas to regulate arousal and stress responses. The underlying function of the NE cortical system is to balance vigilance/scanning behavior with focused attention on novel environmental stimuli and the state of arousal. The central NE system is involved intrinsically with the stress response system, and dysregulation within the NE system has been implicated in the pathogenesis of anxiety and depressive disorders. Central NE activity paradoxically has either anxiogenic or anxiolytic effects, depending on whether the time course of the stress is acute or chronic, whether the stress is predictable or unpredictable, and which underlying brain regions are affected. Under conditions of chronic stress, NE system activity dysregulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal system may turn a homeostatic stress response into a pathological stress response. Data suggest that the NE interplay with the serotonin system may exert neurobiological normalization of the pathophysiological state of anxious depression. Accordingly, pharmacological interventions targeting the NE system can result in anxiolytic, rather than anxiogenic, outcomes when used to treat patients with anxiety and depression.

Relationships of DEX/CRH and GHRH test results to the outcome of depression--preliminary results suggest the GHRH test may predict relapse after discharge

To explore and compare hypothalamic-pituitary-somatotropic (HPS) axis function and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical (HPA) axis function in depression, the dexamethasone (DEX)/CRH test and growth hormone releasing hormone (GHRH) test were prospectively performed on patients with depression at the time of admission and discharge. The patients who relapsed within six months after discharge exhibited significantly lower growth hormone (GH) responses to GHRH at the time of discharge than those who did not relapse. There were no significant correlations between GH response to GHRH and the results of DEX/CRH tests after controlling for age, sex, and body mass index. The findings of this study suggest that results of the GHRH test may be a predictor of future relapse in patients with depression.

Longitudinal neuroendocrine changes assessed by dexamethasone/CRH and growth hormone releasing hormone tests in psychotic depression

Although psychotic depression has been reported to exhibit a greater degree of dysregulation of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical (HPA) function than non-psychotic depression, little is known concerning hypothalamic-pituitary-somatotropic (HPS) function in psychotic depression and how neuroendocrine function changes after treatment. To investigate the longitudinal changes in HPA and HPS system function in psychotic depression, we performed repeated dexamethasone/corticotropin releasing hormone (DEX/CRH) tests and growth hormone (GH) releasing hormone (GHRH) tests in inpatients with major depressive disorder. The psychotic depression group exhibited greater elevation of ACTH responses to the DEX/CRH test and stronger decreases in GH responses to the GHRH test than the non-psychotic depression group at admission. At discharge, the neuroendocrine responses to the DEX/CRH test of the psychotic depression group were still stronger than those of the non-psychotic depression group, though there were no significant differences in severity of depression between the groups. There were significant longitudinal changes in neuroendocrine responses to the DEX/CRH test between admission and discharge. The psychotic depression group exhibited increased GH responses to GHRH at discharge compared with those at admission, whereas no significant longitudinal change in GH response was found in the non-psychotic depression group. Consequently, there were no significant differences in GH responses to GHRH between the psychotic and non-psychotic depression groups at discharge. The results of GHRH test showed no significant relationships with severity of depression except psychotic features and the results of the DEX/CRH test. Our findings suggest that the HPS axis may be associated with psychotic features rather than general severity of depression. Further longitudinal studies are needed to clarify the role of HPS function in psychotic depression and whether sustained dysregulation of HPA function in psychotic depression is associated with a poor outcome after discharge.

Depressive Störungen

Das Spektrum depressiver Erkrankungen macht den Hauptteil affektiver Störungen aus und gehört mit einer Inzidenz von ca. 8–20% zu den häufigsten psychischen Erkrankungen. Depressionen werden nach wie vor zu selten einer adäquaten Therapie (Antidepressiva, störungsspezifische Psychotherapie wie z. B. kognitive Verhaltenstherapie) zugeführt.

Monoaminerge Funktion bei depressiven Patienten

Little is known about the variables that might predict outcome in major depression. Most studies do not imply any clinical consequences for treatment because their predictors were nonspecific and results did not differ between the different treatment options. Finding a variable that can predict the antidepressive treatment option best suited to an individual might help in reducing the considerable number of nonresponders in the treatment of depression. As most antidepressants influence the serotonergic or noradrenergic system, monoaminergic function at the start of therapy might be a possible specific response predictor. In this review, measures that can determine monoaminergic function are presented along with their relationship to treatment response, e.g., monoaminergic metabolites, neuroendocrine challenge tests, evoked event-related potentials, genetics, and neuroimaging. In conclusion, the results of serotonergic functions are still heterogeneous, but the relationship between noradrenergic function and treatment response has not been investigated in any detail yet.

Treatments in depression

Major depression is believed to be a multifactorial disorder involving predisposing temperament and personality traits, exposure to traumatic and stressful life events, and biological susceptibility. Depression, both unipolar and bipolar, is a "phasic" disease. Stressful life events are known to trigger depressive episodes, while their influence seems to decrease over the course of the illness. This suggests that depression is associated with progressive stress response abnormalities, possibly linked to impairments of structural plasticity and cellular resilience. It therefore appears crucial to adequately treat depression in the early stages of the illness, in order to prevent morphological and functional abnormalities. While evidence suggests that a severely depressed patient needs antidepressant drug therapy and that a non-severely depressed patient may benefit from other approaches (ie, "nonbiological"), little research has been done on the effectiveness of different treatments for depression. The assertion that the clinical efficacy of antidepressants is comparable between the classes and within the classes of those medications may be true from a statistical viewpoint, but is of limited value in practice. The antidepressant drugs may produce differences in therapeutic response and tolerability. Among the possible predictors of outcome in depression treatment, those derived from clinical assessment, neuroendocrine investigations, polysomnographic sleep parameters, genetic variables, and brain imaging techniques have been extensively studied. This article also reviews therapeutic strategies used when initial treatment fails, and describes briefly new concepts in antidepressant therapies such as the regulation of disturbances in circadian rhythms. The treatment of depressive illness does not stop with treatment of acute episodes, and has to be envisaged as a continuous therapeutic intervention, of which we are still not able to determine the optimal duration of treatment and the moment that it should be ceased.

Neuroendocrine predictors of the evolution of depression

Depression is both clinically and biologically a heterogeneous entity. Despite advances in psychopharmacology, a significant proportion of depressed patients either continue to have residual symptoms or do not respond to antidepressants. It has therefore become essential to determine parameters (or predictors) that would rationalize the therapeutic choice, taking into account not only the clinical features, but also the "biological state," which is a major determinant in the antidepressant response. Such predictors can derive from bioclinical correlates and, in this context, the neuroendocrine strategy appears particularly suited. Numerous studies have investigated neuroendocrine parameters--derived mainly from dynamic challenge tests--in order to (i) determine the predictive profiles of good clinical responders to given antidepressants; (ii) monitor the progression of markers in parallel with the clinical outcome; and (iii) evaluate "in vivo" in humans the mechanisms of action of antidepressant compounds (before, during, and after treatment). This article does not attempt to be exhaustive, but rather uses selected examples to illustrate the usefulness of the investigation of the adrenal and thyroid axes and the assessment of central serotonergic, noradrenergic, and dopaminergic systems by means of neuroendocrine tests. Given methodological constraints, most of these investigations--except for baseline hormone values and the dexamethasone suppression test--cannot be used routinely in psychiatry. Despite these limitations, the neuroendocrine strategy still offers new insights in biology and the treatment of depression. Its possible expansion depends mainly on the development of specific agonists or antagonists for better investigation of the receptors supposedly involved in the pathophysiology of depression. These investigations will help define more homogeneous subgroups from a bioclinical and therapeutic viewpoint.

Basal prolactin values correlate with response to reboxetine treatment in major depression, but not with response to citalopram

Little is known about variables that might predict outcome in major depression. Recently, basal prolactin values (BPV) have been suggested to predict response to treatment with tricyclic antidepressive drugs. In order to examine whether BPV predict response to selective mono-aminergic therapy, 24 in-patients with major depression were treated in a single-masked, randomised study using the most selective noradrenergic or serotonergic reuptake inhibitors available for antidepressant treatment, i.e. reboxetine and citalopram. A significant correlation between BPV and treatment response to reboxetine was found, but not between BPV and response to citalopram. As BPV are influenced by noradrenergic activity, it can be hypothesized that depressed patients with comparatively high BPV have a relatively high noradrenergic function. This might explain why in our study depressed patients with the highest BPV responded strongest to selective noradrenergic treatment with reboxetine. As measurement of BPV is simple, further studies are suggested to examine the possible clinical value of the link between prolactin, noradrenergic function in major depression and treatment response.

Anxious and depressive disorders and their comorbidity: effect on central nervous system noradrenergic function

BACKGROUND

Although comorbidity of anxiety with depression is common, investigations of physiologic abnormalities related specifically to comorbidity are rare. This study examined relationships of DSM-IV-defined depression, anxiety, and their comorbidity to noradrenergic function measured by blunting of the growth hormone (GH) response to the alpha2 adrenoreceptor agonist (and imidazoline receptor agent) clonidine and by blood pressure and symptom responses.

METHODS

Fifteen subjects with pure social anxiety or panic disorder, 15 with pure major depression, and 18 with both depression and anxiety were compared with healthy control subjects matched for age and gender. Other factors known to affect GH (weight, menstrual status, prior antidepressant, or other drug exposure) were controlled.

RESULTS

Anxiety produced GH blunting, but depression was associated with normal GH responses. The comorbid state did not affect results beyond the impact of anxiety. Preclonidine stress-related GH elevations were observed, to the greatest degree in anxious subjects. Relevant symptom, but not blood pressure, changes were significantly associated with blunting.

CONCLUSIONS

With use of pure depression and anxiety groups and careful control of other factors known to affect GH, these results demonstrate central nervous system noradrenergic dysfunction in anxiety disorders. In contrast to less rigorously controlled studies, noradrenergic function in depression was normal.

Role of pharmacogenomics in individualising treatment with SSRIs

The introduction of the SSRIs has significantly transformed the pharmacological treatment of a range of psychiatric disorders. In particular, individuals affected by depression, panic disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder and social phobia have benefited substantially from their use. Compared with the previous generation of psychotropic drugs, SSRIs offer an improved tolerability to therapy while maintaining a high level of efficacy. Nevertheless, despite these advantages, not all patients benefit from treatment; an appreciable proportion do not respond adequately, while others may react adversely. This necessitates a review of the initial treatment choice, often involving extended periods of illness while a more suitable therapy is sought. Such a scenario could be avoided were it possible to determine the most suitable drug prior to treatment. Several factors are postulated to influence outcome of drug therapy; most recently, pharmacogenetic studies have demonstrated a significant influence of genetic mechanisms on the efficacy of clinically prescribed drugs. This contribution, which is primarily a reflection of alterations in genes that encode drug-metabolising enzymes, drug receptors, transporters and second messengers, may be pertinent to the success of SSRI therapy. Attesting to this potential, studies to elucidate the influence of genetic processes on SSRI efficacy now represent a major focus of pharmacogenetics research. Current evidence emerging from the field suggests that gene variants within the serotonin transporter and cytochrome P450 drug-metabolising enzymes may bear a particular importance, though further corroboration of these findings is still warranted. At the same time, it appears likely that further key participating genes remain to be identified. By comprehensively delineating these genetic components, it is envisaged that this will eventually facilitate the development of highly sensitive protocols for individualising SSRI treatment.