What is the role of conventional antidepressants in the treatment of major depressive episodes with Mixed Features Specifier?

Validity of the DSM-5 Mixed Features Specifier Interview

OBJECTIVES

To examine the reliability and validity of a semi-structured interview assessing the features of the DSM-5 mixed features specifier. Our goal was to develop an instrument that could be used for both diagnostic and severity measurement purposes.

METHODS

Four hundred fifty-nine psychiatric patients in a depressive episode were interviewed by a trained diagnostic rater who administered semi-structured interviews including the DSM-5 Mixed Features Specifier Interview (DMSI). We examined the inter-rater reliability and psychometric properties of the DMSI. The patients were rated on clinician rating scales of depression, anxiety, and irritability, and measures of psychosocial functioning, suicidality, and family history of bipolar disorder.

RESULTS

The DMSI had excellent joint-interview interrater reliability. More than twice as many patients met the DSM-5 mixed features specifier criteria during the week before the assessment than for the majority of the episode (9.4% vs. 3.9%). DMSI total scores were more highly correlated with a clinician-rated measure of manic symptoms than with measures of depression and anxiety. More patients with bipolar depression met the mixed features specifier than patients with MDD. Amongst patients with MDD, those with mixed features more frequently had a family history of bipolar disorder, were more frequently diagnosed with anxiety disorders, attention deficit disorder, and borderline personality disorder, more frequently had attempted suicide, and were more severely depressed, anxious, and irritable.

CONCLUSION

The DMSI is a reliable and valid measure of the presence of the DSM-5 mixed features specifier in depressed patients as well as the severity of the features of the specifier.

Diagnosing and treating major depressive episodes that lie along the mood disorders spectrum: focus on depression with mixed features

Growing evidence indicates that historical descriptions of mixed depression-broadly defined as major depressive episodes with subthreshold manic or hypomanic (hypo/manic) symptoms-are incredibly clinically relevant in this day-and-age. However, the first operational definition of mixed depression did not occur in the modern nomenclature until 2013 with publication of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5), and there has not been enough time to evaluate these criteria empirically. Thus, the most valid operational definition of a mixed depressive episode is still unknown, widely accepted treatment guidelines are not available, and no treatment has regulatory approval for mixed depression-whether associated with bipolar I disorder, bipolar II disorder, or major depressive disorder. This is despite seven drugs having regulatory indications for mixed episodes, defined as the co-occurrence of syndromal depression and syndromal mania, and now recognized as mania with mixed features by DSM-5. Indeed, we found only two randomized, placebo-controlled trials in patients with protocol defined mixed depression, one with ziprasidone and one with lurasidone. Both studies were positive, suggesting treatment with second-generation antipsychotics may be helpful for mixed depressive episodes associated with bipolar II or unipolar disorder. We found no randomized control trial of antidepressant monotherapy in mixed depression and many clinical reports that such treatment may worsen mixed depression Randomized, placebo-controlled trials of antidepressants, antipsychotics, and mood stabilizers-alone and in combination-in individuals with carefully defined mixed depression are needed before firm treatment guidelines can be produced.

Dissecting major depression: The role of blood biomarkers and adverse childhood experiences in distinguishing clinical subgroups

BACKGROUND

The syndromic diagnosis of major depressive disorder (MDD) is associated with individual differences in prognosis, course, treatment response, and outcome. There is evidence that patients with a history to adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) may belong to a distinct clinical subgroup. The combination of data on ACEs and blood biomarkers could allow the identification of diagnostic MDD subgroups.

METHODS

We selected several blood markers (global DNA methylation, and VEGF-a, TOLLIP, SIRT1, miR-34a genes) among factors that contribute to the pathogenetic mechanisms of MDD. We examined their level in 37 MDD patients and 30 healthy subjects. ACEs were measured by the Parental Bonding Instrument and the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire.

RESULTS

We found significant differences between patients and healthy subjects in three biomarkers (TOLLIP, VEGF-a, and global DNA methylation), independently from the confounding effect of parental care received. By contrast, SIRT1 differences were modulated by quality of parental care. The lowest levels of SIRT1 were recorded in patients with active symptoms and low maternal/paternal care. miR-34a and SIRT1 levels were associated with MDD symptoms especially in early-life stressed patients.

LIMITATIONS

Small sample size, no information on personality comorbidity and suicidal history, cross-sectional definition of remission, and lack of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that the levels of global DNA methylation, TOLLIP, and VEGF-a reflect pathophysiological changes associated with MDD that are independent from the long-term effects of low parental care. This study also suggests that SIRT1 may be an additional variable distinguishing the ecophenotype that includes MDD patients with exposure to ACEs.

Depression Preceding Diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder

This paper focuses on depression that precedes an onset of manifest bipolar disorder as early stage bipolar disorder. First, we review how to pragmatically identify the clinical characteristics of patients presenting with an episode of depression who subsequently go on to develop episodes of mania or hypomania. The existing literature shows a strong consensus: accurate identification of depression with early onset and recurrent course with multiple episodes, subthreshold hypomanic and/or mixed symptoms, and family history of bipolar disorder or completed suicide have been shown by multiple authors as signs pointing to bipolar diagnosis. This contrasts with relatively limited information available to guide management of such "pre-bipolar" (pre-declared bipolar) patients, especially those in the adult age range. Default assumption of unipolar depression at this stage carries significant risk. Antidepressants are still the most common pharmacological treatment used, but clinicians need to be aware of their potential harm. In some patients with unrecognized bipolar depression, antidepressants can not only produce switch to (hypo)mania, but also mixed symptoms, or worsening of depression with an increased risk of suicide. We review pragmatic management strategies in the literature beyond clinical guidelines that can be considered for this at-risk group encompassing the more recent child and adolescent literature. In the future, genetic research could make the early identification of bipolar depression easier by generating informative markers and polygenic risk scores.

Suicidal Behavior Associated with Mixed Features in Major Mood Disorders

Mixed features of the opposite nominal mood-polarity are increasingly recognized in both depressive and [hypo]manic phases of major affective disorders. They are associated with major increases of risk of suicidal behaviors. The authors reviewed the association of suicidal behavior with mixed features in both major depressive and bipolar disorders, as well as potentially relevant adverse effects of antidepressant treatment and use of alternative treatments aimed at minimizing agitation and suicidal risk.

General Predictors and Moderators of Depression Remission: A VAST-D Report

OBJECTIVE

Almost two-thirds of patients with major depressive disorder do not achieve remission with initial treatments. Thus, identifying and providing effective, feasible, and safe "next-step" treatments are clinical imperatives. This study explores patient baseline features that might help clinicians select between commonly used next-step treatments.

METHODS

The authors used data from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Augmentation and Switching Treatments for Improving Depression Outcomes (VAST-D) study, a multisite, randomized, single-blind trial of 1,522 Veterans Health Administration patients who did not have an adequate response to at least one course of antidepressant treatment meeting minimal standards for dosage and duration. For 12 weeks, participants received one of three possible next-step treatments: switch to another antidepressant-sustained-release bupropion; combination with another antidepressant-sustained-release bupropion; or augmentation with an antipsychotic-aripiprazole. Life table regression models were used to identify baseline characteristics associated with remission overall (general predictors) and their interaction with remission among the three treatment groups (moderators).

RESULTS

Remission was more likely for individuals who were employed, less severely and chronically depressed, less anxious, not experiencing complicated grief symptoms, did not experience childhood adversity, and had better quality of life and positive mental health. Two features suggested specific next-step treatment selections: age ≥65 years (for whom augmentation with aripiprazole was more effective than switch to bupropion) and severe mixed hypomanic symptoms (for which augmentation with aripiprazole and combination with bupropion were more effective than switch to bupropion).

CONCLUSIONS

If replicated, these preliminary findings could help clinicians determine which patients with depression requiring next-step treatment will benefit most from a specific augmentation, combination, or switching strategy.

Treatment-resistant depression: problematic illness or a problem in our approach?

Treatment-resistant depression is widely defined as non-response to two 'adequate' courses of treatment. However, the definitions of treatment and depression are inconsistent reflecting gaps in our understanding. We argue that a failure to respond is often the result of administering inappropriate treatment, which occurs principally because of paradigm failure.Declaration of interestNone.

Mixed symptoms in major depressive and bipolar disorders: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The DSM-5 mixed features specifier for mood disorders encourages renewed interest in mixed states and led us to pool research findings regarding prevalence of mixed features in episodes of major depressive (MDD) and bipolar disorders (BD).

METHODS

We systematically searched to July 2017 for reports on mixed symptoms in depressive episodes of MDD and in depression and mania or hypomania in types I and II BD. For primary mood-states and diagnostic groups we compared rates of the presence of mixed symptoms: as defined by DSM-5 (≥3 features opposite to the dominant mood-polarity but not overlapping those of the primary disorder) or as having any ≥3 features of opposite polarity.

RESULTS

We identified 17 reports, from 13 world regions involving 19,198 participants meeting standard diagnostic criteria for an index major depressive or [hypo]manic episode. Prevalence of cases with ≥3 features of opposite polarity averaged 27.8% [CI: 27.2-28.5] overall, and differed significantly between BD and MDD disorders, ranking: BD-depressed (35.2% [33.8-36.5]) = BD-[hypo]manic (35.1% [32.9-37.3]) > MDD-depressed (23.8% [23.0-24.5]).

LIMITATIONS

Available findings were limited to mood disorders with mixed features by particular criteria, with few comparisons to other criteria or to their prognostic or therapeutic implications.

CONCLUSIONS

Prevalence of ≥3 features of opposite polarity ranked: depressive = [hypo]manic episodes of BD > depression in MDD.