Escitalopram prevents relapse in older patients with major depressive disorder

When to stop medication in unipolar depression: A systematic review and a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Currently, there is no clear answer to the question of how long antidepressants should be continued or when they can be safely discontinued.

METHODS

Pubmed/Medline was systematically searched from inception to Feb 20, 2021. Double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) with maintenance phase were selected to examine the relationship between relapse rate and treatment duration. Among 5351 screened records, 37 RCTs meeting inclusion criteria were selected. Odds ratios were calculated from relapse rates for each study and pooled in random-effect models. Possible predictors of effect sizes, i.e., open-label treatment duration, double-blind phase duration, age, medication type, history of recurrence, were analyzed by meta-regression.

RESULTS

The random-effects model showed the superiority of active medication over placebo for relapse during the follow-up phase (OR = 0.37; 95 % CI, 0.32-0.42). The meta-regression did not show a relationship between treatment duration and the effect sizes. Other clinical variables were not related with effect sizes. Subgroup analysis revealed that, for atypical ADs the effect size increased as the treatment duration increased. Further analysis showed that the relapse rate in the placebo group decreased as function of time, which reduced the absolute benefit of continued treatment.

CONCLUSION

The results may indicate that long term use of antidepressants may not be justified, and this strategy may expose the patients to more adverse effects.

A Review of Clinical Studies Assessing the Therapeutic Efficacy of Escitalopram: A Step Towards Development

BACKGROUND

Major depression is a debilitating, sometimes fatal disorder, deteriorating the quality of life and well-being. Escitalopram showed highly selective and dose-dependent inhibitory activity on human serotonin transport. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are the first-line drugs to manage major depressive disorder (MDD).

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to explore the therapeutic potential of escitalopram, a clinically approved drug to manage MDD and panic disorders.

METHODS

It emphasizes comparative and clinical trial studies with several pharmacological targets reviewed from the data available on PubMed, Science Direct, Clinicaltrails.gov, and from many reputed foundations.

RESULTS

To highlight the clinical efficacy, safety, recent development, and stable formulation of escitalopram with an increased bioavailability profile. Evidence-based on the available clinical and pharmacoeconomic data, escitalopram represents an effective first-line treatment option for MDD patients.

CONCLUSION

The present review highlights the placebo-controlled clinical studies and the recent development that can be helpful for further research perspectives.

Analysis of Antidepressants Utilization for Patients Visiting Psychiatric Out-Patient Clinic in a Tertiary Care Hospital

Depression is a prevalent mental health condition treated with antidepressants and other psychotropic medications. This study aimed to assess the utilization pattern of antidepressants among patients visiting the outpatient clinic of the psychiatry department of a tertiary care hospital. The study included the patients who visited the study site and fulfilled the mental and behavioral diagnostic criteria for depression. The demographic and clinical details, including drugs prescribed, were documented in a study-specific data collection form. The ratio of Prescribed Daily Dose to Defined Daily Dose (PDD: DDD) was calculated to assess the adequacy of antidepressant utilization. Data total of 154 patients were collected. A total of 22 psychotropic drugs were used among the study patients as mono (n = 70), dual (n = 69), triple (n = 10), or quadruple therapy (n = 1). Escitalopram was the most often prescribed antidepressant out of the nine antidepressants alone and in combination and was used in slightly high doses (PDD: DDD ratio 1.6). Sertraline, paroxetine, and desvenlafaxine, were used in adequate doses (PDD: DDD between 1 and 1.1), and fluoxetine, duloxetine, amitriptyline, imipramine, and mirtazapine, were used in inadequate doses (PDD: DDD <0.5). Our study findings reveal the need for continuous assessment of antidepressants medications usage in a hospital set up.

Measuring brain glucose metabolism in order to predict response to antidepressant or placebo: A randomized clinical trial

There is critical need for a clinically useful tool to predict antidepressant treatment outcome in major depressive disorder (MDD) to reduce suffering and mortality. This analysis sought to build upon previously reported antidepressant treatment efficacy prediction from 2-[¹⁸F]-fluorodeoxyglucose - Positron Emission Tomography (FDG-PET) using metabolic rate of glucose uptake (MRGlu) from dynamic FDG-PET imaging with the goal of translation to clinical utility. This investigation is a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial. All participants were diagnosed with MDD and received an FDG-PET scan before randomization and after treatment. Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) was completed in participants diagnosed with MDD before and after 8 weeks of escitalopram, or placebo. MRGlu (mg/(min*100 ml)) was estimated within the raphe nuclei, right insula, and left ventral Prefrontal Cortex in 63 individuals. Linear regression was used to examine the association between pretreatment MRGlu and percent decrease in HDRS-17. Additionally, the association between percent decrease in HDRS-17 and percent change in MRGlu between pretreatment scan and post-treatment scan was examined. Covariates were treatment type (SSRI/placebo), handedness, sex, and age. Depression severity decrease (n = 63) was not significantly associated with pretreatment MRGlu in the raphe nuclei (β = -2.61e^-03 [-0.26, 0.25], p = 0.98), right insula (β = 0.05 [-0.23, 0.32], p = 0.72), or ventral prefrontal cortex (β = 0.06 [-0.23, 0.34], p = 0.68) where β is the standardized estimated coefficient, with a 95% confidence interval, or in whole brain voxelwise analysis (family-wise error correction, alpha = 0.05). MRGlu percent change was not significantly associated with depression severity decrease (n = 58) before multiple comparison correction in the RN (β = 0.20 [-0.07, 0.47], p = 0.15), right insula (β = 0.24 [-0.03, 0.51], p = 0.08), or vPFC (β = 0.22 [-0.06, 0.50], p = 0.12). We propose that FDG-PET imaging does not indicate a clinically relevant biomarker of escitalopram or placebo treatment response in heterogeneous major depressive disorder cohorts. Future directions include focusing on potential biologically-based subtypes of major depressive disorder by implementing biomarker stratified designs.

Influence of childhood trauma on the treatment outcomes of pharmacological and/or psychological interventions for adolescents and adults with bipolar disorder: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Despite available pharmacological and psychological treatments, remission rates for bipolar disorder remain relatively low. Current research implicates the experience of childhood trauma as a potential moderator of poor treatment outcomes among individuals with bipolar disorder. To date, the evidence reporting the influence of childhood trauma on the treatment outcomes of pharmacological and/or psychological interventions for adolescents and adults with bipolar disorder has not been systematically reviewed.

METHOD AND ANALYSIS

MEDLINE Complete, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be searched to identify randomised and nonrandomised studies of pharmacological and/or psychological interventions for bipolar disorder, which also assessed childhood trauma. To be eligible for inclusion, studies must have been conducted with adolescents or adults (≥10 years). Data will be screened and extracted by two independent reviewers. The methodological quality of the included studies will be assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. If deemed viable, a meta-analysis will be conducted using a random effects model. Heterogeneity of evidence will be estimated with the I² statistics.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This systematic review will use only previously published data. Therefore, ethical approval is not required. The results will be written in concordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines, published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020201891.

Approaches for discontinuation versus continuation of long-term antidepressant use for depressive and anxiety disorders in adults

BACKGROUND

Depression and anxiety are the most frequent indication for which antidepressants are prescribed. Long-term antidepressant use is driving much of the internationally observed rise in antidepressant consumption. Surveys of antidepressant users suggest that 30% to 50% of long-term antidepressant prescriptions had no evidence-based indication. Unnecessary use of antidepressants puts people at risk of adverse events. However, high-certainty evidence is lacking regarding the effectiveness and safety of approaches to discontinuing long-term antidepressants.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of approaches for discontinuation versus continuation of long-term antidepressant use for depressive and anxiety disorders in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched all databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) until January 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs comparing approaches to discontinuation with continuation of antidepressants (or usual care) for people with depression or anxiety who are prescribed antidepressants for at least six months. Interventions included discontinuation alone (abrupt or taper), discontinuation with psychological therapy support, and discontinuation with minimal intervention. Primary outcomes were successful discontinuation rate, relapse (as defined by authors of the original study), withdrawal symptoms, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, quality of life, social and occupational functioning, and severity of illness.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 33 studies involving 4995 participants. Nearly all studies were conducted in a specialist mental healthcare service and included participants with recurrent depression (i.e. two or more episodes of depression prior to discontinuation). All included trials were at high risk of bias. The main limitation of the review is bias due to confounding withdrawal symptoms with symptoms of relapse of depression. Withdrawal symptoms (such as low mood, dizziness) may have an effect on almost every outcome including adverse events, quality of life, social functioning, and severity of illness. Abrupt discontinuation Thirteen studies reported abrupt discontinuation of antidepressant. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that abrupt discontinuation without psychological support may increase risk of relapse (hazard ratio (HR) 2.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59 to 2.74; 1373 participants, 10 studies) and there is insufficient evidence of its effect on adverse events (odds ratio (OR) 1.11, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.99; 1012 participants, 7 studies; I² = 37%) compared to continuation of antidepressants, without specific assessment of withdrawal symptoms. Evidence about the effects of abrupt discontinuation on withdrawal symptoms (1 study) is very uncertain. None of these studies included successful discontinuation rate as a primary endpoint. Discontinuation by "taper" Eighteen studies examined discontinuation by "tapering" (one week or longer). Most tapering regimens lasted four weeks or less. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that "tapered" discontinuation may lead to higher risk of relapse (HR 2.97, 95% CI 2.24 to 3.93; 1546 participants, 13 studies) with no or little difference in adverse events (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.38; 1479 participants, 7 studies; I² = 0%) compared to continuation of antidepressants, without specific assessment of withdrawal symptoms. Evidence about the effects of discontinuation on withdrawal symptoms (1 study) is very uncertain. Discontinuation with psychological support Four studies reported discontinuation with psychological support. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that initiation of preventive cognitive therapy (PCT), or MBCT, combined with "tapering" may result in successful discontinuation rates of 40% to 75% in the discontinuation group (690 participants, 3 studies). Data from control groups in these studies were requested but are not yet available. Low-certainty evidence suggests that discontinuation combined with psychological intervention may result in no or little effect on relapse (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.19; 690 participants, 3 studies) compared to continuation of antidepressants. Withdrawal symptoms were not measured. Pooling data on adverse events was not possible due to insufficient information (3 studies). Discontinuation with minimal intervention Low-certainty evidence from one study suggests that a letter to the general practitioner (GP) to review antidepressant treatment may result in no or little effect on successful discontinuation rate compared to usual care (6% versus 8%; 146 participants, 1 study) or on relapse (relapse rate 26% vs 13%; 146 participants, 1 study). No data on withdrawal symptoms nor adverse events were provided. None of the studies used low-intensity psychological interventions such as online support or a changed pharmaceutical formulation that allows tapering with low doses over several months. Insufficient data were available for the majority of people taking antidepressants in the community (i.e. those with only one or no prior episode of depression), for people aged 65 years and older, and for people taking antidepressants for anxiety.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, relatively few studies have focused on approaches to discontinuation of long-term antidepressants. We cannot make any firm conclusions about effects and safety of the approaches studied to date. The true effect and safety are likely to be substantially different from the data presented due to assessment of relapse of depression that is confounded by withdrawal symptoms. All other outcomes are confounded with withdrawal symptoms. Most tapering regimens were limited to four weeks or less. In the studies with rapid tapering schemes the risk of withdrawal symptoms may be similar to studies using abrupt discontinuation which may influence the effectiveness of the interventions. Nearly all data come from people with recurrent depression.   There is an urgent need for trials that adequately address withdrawal confounding bias, and carefully distinguish relapse from withdrawal symptoms. Future studies should report key outcomes such as successful discontinuation rate and should include populations with one or no prior depression episodes in primary care, older people, and people taking antidepressants for anxiety and use tapering schemes longer than 4 weeks.

Generalizability of pharmacologic and psychotherapy trial results for late-life unipolar depression

OBJECTIVES

Despite evidence of low representativeness of clinical trial results for depression in adults, the generalizability of clinical trial results for late-life depression is unknown. This study sought to quantify the representativeness of pharmacologic and psychotherapy clinical trial results for late-life unipolar depression.

METHOD

Data were derived from the 2004-2005 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC), a nationally representative sample of 34,653 adults from the United States population. To assess the generalizability of clinical trial results for late-life depression, we applied a standard set of eligibility criteria representative of pharmacologic and psychotherapy clinical trials to all individuals aged 65 years and older in NESARC with a DSM-IV diagnosis of MDE and no lifetime history of mania/hypomania (n = 273) and in a subsample of individuals seeking help for depression (n = 78).

RESULTS

More than four of ten respondents and about two of ten respondents would have been excluded by at least one exclusion criterion in a typical pharmacologic and psychotherapy efficacy trial, respectively. Similar results (i.e.41.1% and 25.9%, respectively) were found in the subsample of individuals seeking help for depression. Excess percentage of exclusion in typical pharmacologic studies was accounted for by the criterion "significant medical condition". We also found that populations typically included in pharmacologic and psychotherapy clinical trials for late-life unipolar depression may substantially differ.

CONCLUSION

Psychotherapy trial results may be representative of most patients with late-life unipolar depression in routine clinical practice. By contrast, pharmacologic clinical trials may not be readily generalizable to community samples.

Discontinuation of antidepressants after remission with antidepressant medication in major depressive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis

A significant clinical issue encountered after a successful acute major depressive disorder (MDD) treatment is the relapse of depressive symptoms. Although continuing maintenance therapy with antidepressants is generally recommended, there is no established protocol on whether or not it is necessary to prescribe the antidepressant used to achieve remission. In this meta-analysis, the risk of relapse and treatment failure when either continuing with the same drug used to achieved remission or switching to a placebo was assessed in several clinically significant subgroups. The pooled odds ratio (OR) (±95% confidence intervals (CI)) was calculated using a random effects model. Across 40 studies (n = 8890), the relapse rate was significantly lower in the antidepressant group than the placebo group by about 20% (OR = 0.38, CI: 0.33-0.43, p < 0.00001; 20.9% vs 39.7%). The difference in the relapse rate between the antidepressant and placebo groups was greater for tricyclics (25.3%; OR = 0.30, CI: 0.17-0.50, p < 0.00001), SSRIs (21.8%; OR = 0.33, CI: 0.28-0.38, p < 0.00001), and other newer agents (16.0%; OR = 0.44, CI: 0.36-0.54, p < 0.00001) in that order, while the effect size of acceptability was greater for SSRIs than for other antidepressants. A flexible dose schedule (OR = 0.30, CI: 0.23-0.48, p < 0.00001) had a greater effect size than a fixed dose (OR = 0.41, CI: 0.36-0.48, p < 0.00001) in comparison to placebo. Even in studies assigned after continuous treatment for more than 6 months after remission, the continued use of antidepressants had a lower relapse rate than the use of a placebo (OR = 0.40, CI: 0.29-0.55, p < 0.00001; 20.2% vs 37.2%). The difference in relapse rate was similar from a maintenance period of 6 months (OR = 0.41, CI: 0.35-0.48, p < 0.00001; 19.6% vs 37.6%) to over 1 year (OR = 0.35, CI: 0.29-0.41, p < 0.00001; 19.9% vs 39.8%). The all-cause dropout of antidepressant and placebo groups was 43% and 58%, respectively, (OR = 0.47, CI: 0.40-0.55, p < 0.00001). The tolerability rate was ~4% for both groups. The rate of relapse (OR = 0.32, CI: 0.18-0.64, p = 0.0010, 41.0% vs 66.7%) and all-cause dropout among adolescents was higher than in adults. To prevent relapse and treatment failure, maintenance therapy, and careful attention for at least 6 months after remission is recommended. SSRIs are well-balanced agents, and flexible dose adjustments are more effective for relapse prevention.

Does the rapid response of an antidepressant contribute to better cost-effectiveness? Comparison between mirtazapine and SSRIs for first-line treatment of depression in Japan

AIM

Previous studies indicate that mirtazapine is unique in its quick responsiveness compared to other antidepressants. Although some other studies have evaluated its cost-effectiveness, they have not considered its early stage remission rate. The aim of this study was to address this research gap by using precise clinical data to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of mirtazapine in Japan.

METHODS

We developed a Markov model to reflect the week-by-week transition probabilities. The Markov cycle was set as 1 week. While our clinical parameters were obtained largely from existing meta-analyses, cost data were derived from government reports. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated by incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per quality-adjusted life year estimated based on the probability sensitivity analyses. The ICERs were estimated at 2, 8, 26, and 52 weeks.

RESULTS

In severe depression, the ICERs ranged between JPY 872 153 and 1 772 723. The probability of mirtazapine being cost-effective ranged from 0.75 to 0.99 when the ICER threshold was JPY 5 000 000. In moderate depression, the ICERs ranged between JPY 2 356 499 and 4 770 145. The probability of mirtazapine being cost-effective ranged from 0.55 to 0.83 when the ICER threshold was JPY 5 000 000.

CONCLUSION

When considering the early stage efficacy of mirtazapine, it appeared to be cost-effective compared to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, especially for severe depression and in the early stage treatment in the Japanese setting. However, our study has some limitations. First, mirtazapine is compared with batched selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors rather than individual ones. Second, we did not consider antidepressant combination therapy as treatment options.

Successful Use of Escitalopram for the Treatment of Visual Hallucinations in Patients With Parkinson Disease

INTRODUCTION

Patients with Parkinson disease (PD) frequently experience visual hallucinations (VH). Visual hallucinations are most often viewed as an adverse effect of antiparkinsonian treatment. Possible treatments for this disturbance include a reduction of antiparkinsonian medications, adding atypical antipsychotics, or cholinesterase inhibitors. Some studies demonstrated that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors may be an optional treatment for patients experiencing psychosis or agitation in dementia. Currently, there is no standard recommended treatment for VH in patients with PD. We present here our clinical experience with escitalopram (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) for treating this disturbance.

METHODS

Thirteen patients with PD (8 men and 5 women; age range 67-83 years) experiencing VH were openly treated with escitalopram 10 or 15 mg/d as add-on. Efficacy was assessed at baseline, then after 4 and 8 weeks of treatment using Clinical Global Impression-Severity and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement.

RESULTS

At the end of the 4th week of treatment, of 13 patients, 11 subjects demonstrated improvement, and in only 2 patients were there no changes in their condition. After an additional 4 weeks, 2 of the responders showed very significant improvement, 6 demonstrated much improvement, and 3 patients demonstrated minimal improvement. Only 1 patient showed no change in his condition. One additional patient stopped taking escitalopram after 5 weeks because of an absence of improvement in his state.

CONCLUSIONS

Escitalopram was well tolerated as treatment of VH in PD patients. This medication could be a promising optional therapy for this disturbance; however, further randomized controlled and bigger studies are necessary.

Efficacy and tolerability of antidepressants in people aged 65 years or older with major depressive disorder - A systematic review and a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There has been a steady increase in the prescription of antidepressants for the elderly. This study comprises a systematic review of randomized, placebo-controlled trials of antidepressants for treatment of depressive disorder in people aged 65 years or more.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAL, and PsycINFO were searched until May 2016. Where appropriate, the results were synthesized in meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Twelve trials met the inclusion criteria. For patients with major depressive disorder, selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRI) were not superior to placebo in achieving remission (OR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.61-1.03) or response (OR=0.86, 95% CI: 0.51-1.10) after 8 weeks of treatment (three trials). However, maintenance treatment with SSRIs was superior to placebo in preventing relapse (OR: 0.22, 95% CI: 0.13-0.36; NNT=5, 95% CI: 3-6; two trials). Duloxetine was superior to placebo in achieving remission (OR: 1.78, 95% CI: 1.20-2.65; NNT=9, 95% CI: 6-20; three trials) and response (OR: 1.83, 95% CI: 1.96-4.08; two trials) in recurrent major depression after 8 weeks, but increased the risk of adverse events that can be problematic in the elderly.

LIMITATIONS

The quality of evidence was generally low or moderate, emphasizing the uncertainty of the results. Study populations only partly covered the heterogeneous population of elderly with depressed mood, limiting the generalizability.

CONCLUSION

The results underscore the importance of close monitoring of the effects of antidepressants in treatment of elderly patients with a depressive disorder. Methods for early detection of non-responders and effective treatment options for this group are needed.

Continuation and maintenance treatments for depression in older people

BACKGROUND

Depressive illness is common in old age. Prevalence in the community of case level depression is around 15% and milder forms of depression are more common. It causes significant distress and disability. The number of people over the age of 60 years is expected to double by 2050 and so interventions for this often long-term and recurrent condition are increasingly important. The causes of late-life depression differ from depression in younger adults and so it is appropriate to study it separately.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the efficacy of antidepressants and psychological therapies in preventing the relapse and recurrence of depression in older people.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a search of the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group's specialised register (the CCMDCTR) to 13 July 2015. The CCMDCTR includes relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the following bibliographic databases: The Cochrane Library (all years), MEDLINE (1950 to date), EMBASE (1974 to date), and PsycINFO (1967 to date). We also conducted a cited reference search on 13 July 2015 of the Web of Science for citations of primary reports of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Both review authors independently selected studies. We included RCTs involving people aged 60 years and over successfully treated for an episode of depression and randomised to receive continuation and maintenance treatment with antidepressants, psychological therapies, or a combination.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data. The primary outcome for benefit was recurrence rate of depression (reaching a cut-off on any depression rating scale) at 12 months and the primary outcome for harm was drop-outs at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included relapse/recurrence rates at other time points, global impression of change, social functioning, and deaths. We performed meta-analysis using risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

This update identified no further trials. Seven studies from the previous review met the inclusion criteria (803 participants). Six compared antidepressant medication with placebo; two involved psychological therapies. There was marked heterogeneity between the studies.Comparing antidepressants with placebo on the primary outcome for benefit, there was a statistically significant difference favouring antidepressants in reducing recurrence compared with placebo at 12 months with a GRADE rating of low for quality of evidence (three RCTs, n = 247, RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.82; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 5). Comparing antidepressants with placebo on the primary outcome for harms, there was no difference in drop-out rates at 12 months' follow-up, with a GRADE rating of low.There was no significant difference between psychological treatment and antidepressant in recurrence rates at 12 months (one RCT, n = 53) or between combination treatment and antidepressant alone at 12 months.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This updated Cochrane review supports the findings of the original 2012 review. The long-term benefits and harm of continuing antidepressant medication in the prevention of recurrence of depression in older people are not clear and no firm treatment recommendations can be made on the basis of this review. Continuing antidepressant medication for 12 months appears to be helpful with no increased harms; however, this was based on only three small studies, relatively few participants, use of a range of antidepressant classes, and clinically heterogeneous populations. Comparisons at other time points did not reach statistical significance.Data on psychological therapies and combined treatments were too limited to draw any conclusions on benefits and harms.The quality of the evidence used in reaching these conclusions was low and the review does not, therefore, offer clear guidance to clinicians and patients on best practice and matching interventions to particular patient characteristics.Of note, we identified no new studies that evaluated pharmacological or psychological interventions in the continuation and maintenance treatment of depression in older people. We are aware of studies conducted since the previous review that included both older people and adults under the age of 65 years, but these fall outside of the remit of this review. We believe that there remains a need for studies solely recruiting older people, particularly the 'older old' with comorbid medical problems. However, these studies are likely to be challenging to conduct and may not, so far, have been prioritised by funders.

Cognitive and psychomotor effects of three months of escitalopram treatment in elderly patients with major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND

Although psychomotor retardation (PR) and cognitive disfunctioning are essential symptoms of elderly depressed patients, the differential effect of treatment with an SSRI in the elderly on these symptoms has hardly got any attention in studies with objective experimental measures. Since effects appear relatively slower in elderly, this study evaluates the effect on cognitive and psychomotor functioning as compared to mood, on four points during a twelve week follow up of monotreatment with escitalopram.

METHOD

28 non-demented elderly unipolar depressive patients on 5-20mg escitalopram were compared to 20 matched healthy elderly. All participants underwent a test battery containing clinical depression measures, cognitive measures of processing speed, executive function and memory, clinical ratings of PR, and objective computerized fine motor skill-tests at the start and after 2, 6 and 12 weeks. Statistical analysis consisted of a General Linear Model (GLM) repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance of completers to compare the psychomotor and cognitive outcomes of the two groups.

RESULTS

Although, apart from the significant mood effect, no interaction effects were found for the psychomotor and cognitive tasks, the means in general show a trend of differential effects in cognitive and psychomotor functions, with smaller effects and delayed timeframes and with presence of subgroups compared to mood effects.

LIMITATION

Longer follow up studies are necessary to evaluate differential long term effects.

CONCLUSION

In elderly, moderate effects of SSRI treatment on mood precede slow or limited effects on cognition and psychomotor retardation.

No evidence in favor of a more deleterious impact of a major depressive episode on verbal memory in older patients with antidepressant response

BACKGROUND

Older patients may be more vulnerable to the deleterious effect of depressive episodes on delayed narrative memory, a cognitive task which reflects hippocampal activity. We aimed to disentangle which factors could explain such increased vulnerability in the elderly, including the poorer response to treatment, a longer lifetime exposure to past depressive episodes, and lower baseline memory skills.

METHODS

From an initial sample of 8,229 depressed outpatients, we focused on the 2,424 treatment responders, and compared older (65 years old and over, N = 233) to younger (N = 2,191) ones. These patients were included through general practitioners' assessment and tested for the Wechsler delayed paragraph recall index, a valid and sensitive test assessing verbal declarative memory (and a marker of the hippocampal function), at baseline and after six weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

As expected, older patients after response to antidepressants showed decreased narrative memory abilities compared to younger ones. As baseline memory performance and residual depressive symptoms were also found in excess in this sample, they could act as confounders. Indeed, after controlling for these two factors, the role of age in memory performance after treatment response was ruled out.

CONCLUSIONS

The potential "toxicity" of a depressive episode to cognitive functions related to the hippocampus may not be more critical in older patients compared to younger ones. Limiting remaining depressive symptoms in older depressed patients might be a way to counteract the observed worsening of memory functions in depressed patients.

Efficacy of Desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d Versus Placebo in the Long-Term Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder: A Randomized, Double-Blind Trial

OBJECTIVE

To examine long-term (11-month) antidepressant efficacy of desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d across a broad range of clinical and functional outcomes in patients with major depressive disorder.

METHOD

Adult outpatients (≥ 18 years) with major depressive disorder (DSM-IV criteria) and a 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) total score ≥ 20 at screening and baseline who responded to 8 weeks of open-label desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d and had a continuing stable response through week 20 were randomly assigned to receive placebo or desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d in a 6-month, double-blind, randomized withdrawal period. Depressive symptoms were evaluated using the HDRS-17, 6-item HDRS, and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Ilness and -Improvement (CGI-S, CGI-I). Health outcomes included the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire and the World Health Organization 5-Item Well-Being Index (WHO-5). The trial was conducted from June 2009 to March 2011 at 87 study sites in 14 countries worldwide.

RESULTS

Of 874 patients enrolled in open-label treatment, 548 patients were randomly assigned to receive double-blind placebo (n = 276) or desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d (n = 272). At the end of the 6-month double-blind treatment, improvements in depressive symptoms were better maintained among the desvenlafaxine- than placebo-treated patients on all efficacy endpoints (all P ≤ .001); in the desvenlafaxine group, 21.8% (vs 42.9% in the placebo group) had CGI-I ratings of 5, 6, and 7 (minimally worse/much worse/very much worse), and 74.4% met criteria for remission (placebo: 54.2%). WPAI and WHO-5 scores indicated significantly better productivity and well-being with continued desvenlafaxine (vs placebo, P ≤ .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term treatment with desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d maintained improvements in major depressive disorder among adult outpatients who exhibited a stable therapeutic response.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00887224.

World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) guidelines for biological treatment of unipolar depressive disorders. part 2: maintenance treatment of major depressive disorder-update 2015

These guidelines for the treatment of unipolar depressive disorders systematically review available evidence pertaining to the biological treatment of patients with major depression and produce a series of practice recommendations that are clinically and scientifically meaningful based on the available evidence. These guidelines are intended for use by all physicians assessing and treating patients with these conditions. The relevant data have been extracted primarily from various treatment guidelines and panels for depressive disorders, as well as from meta-analyses/reviews on the efficacy of antidepressant medications and other biological treatment interventions identified by a search of the MEDLINE database and Cochrane Library. The identified literature was evaluated with respect to the strength of evidence for its efficacy and was then categorized into five levels of evidence (CE A-F) and five levels of recommendation grades (RG 1-5). This second part of the WFSBP guidelines on depressive disorders covers the management of the maintenance phase treatment, and is primarily concerned with the biological treatment (including pharmacological and hormonal medications, electroconvulsive therapy and other brain stimulation treatments) of adults and also, albeit to a lesser extent, children, adolescents and older adults.

Factors predicting relapse in elderly patients with major depressive disorder treated with escitalopram in an outpatient setting

OBJECTIVE

We investigated which factors can best predict relapse in older patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who have achieved remission with escitalopram.

METHODS

A total of 405 patients who were 65 years or older with a primary diagnosis of MDD received 12 week, open-label escitalopram 10 or 20 mg/day. Patients in remission (MADRS ≤12) at Week 12 were randomized to 24 weeks of double-blind treatment with either placebo or escitalopram (fixed dose from Week 6).

RESULTS

After randomization of 312 patients in remission, patients whose dose had been increased to 20 mg escitalopram after 2 weeks of open-label treatment had a high escitalopram relapse rate (16.7%) and a placebo relapse rate of 32.5% with a hazard ratio (HR) of 2.2, whereas patients titrated to 20 mg escitalopram at Weeks 4 or 6 had a high placebo relapse rate (41.2%) and an escitalopram relapse rate of 5.7% with a HR = 8.9. A high placebo relapse rate was also observed for patients with a baseline MADRS below median, while low escitalopram relapse rates were characteristic of patients who had achieved remission by Week 6 or 8 (HR = 8.9), had a current depressive episode length below median, baseline MADRS below median (HR = 11.8), or received 10 mg for 12 weeks (HR = 6.3). A key limitation of the study was that some analyses were post-hoc and that none of the comparisons between complementary subgroups had nominal p-values <0.05.

CONCLUSIONS

In this post-hoc analysis of elderly patients with MDD, several factors, including female gender, early remission, low baseline MADRS score, major depressive episode (MDE) duration, and escitalopram dosage, significantly affected the relapse rate after randomization to escitalopram or placebo.

Prescribing selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in older age

Apart from commercial reasons, two motivations have led to the introduction of SSRIs to replace the first and second generation antidepressants already available. One was the search for a more rational treatment, based on specific mechanisms, the other the development of effective treatments with fewer side effects, particularly for older patients, who have a greater sensitivity to cardio-vascular and central nervous system effects. The first has been frustrated up to a point, in that SSRIs and other single mechanism drugs do not appear to be more effective than the earliest relatively non-specific antidepressants. The second has been fulfilled, in that SSRIs generally are better tolerated in older patients and in overdose. However, there is a spectrum of other side effects that are particularly relevant in older age and that need attention when treating depression in this particular patient group.

Antidepressant monotherapy compared with combinations of antidepressants in the treatment of resistant depressive patients: a randomized, open-label study

OBJECTIVE

This randomized, 6-week, open-label study compared efficacy of CAD and antidepressant monotherapies (ADM) that had been chosen according to clinical judgment of the attending psychiatrist.

METHODS

A total of 60 inpatients (intent-to-treat analysis) with depressive disorder (≥ 1 unsuccessful antidepressant treatment) were randomly assigned to the interventions. The responders who completed the acute phase of study, were evaluated for relapse within 2 months of follow-up treatment. The primary outcome measure was change in the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and response was defined as a ≥ 50% reduction of MADRS score.

RESULTS

Mean changes in total MADRS score from baseline to week 6 for patients in both treatment modalities were not different (ADM = 13.2 ± 8.6 points; CAD = 14.5 ± 9.5 points; P = 0.58). The analysis of covariance performed for significantly higher value of imipramine equivalent dose in CAD group showed only a non-significant between-group difference for total MADRS change (P = 0.17). There were also no differences between groups in response rate (ADM = 48%; CAD = 58%) and number of drop-outs in acute treatment as well as proportion of responders' relapses in the follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Both treatment modalities produced clinically relevant reduction of depressive symptomatology in acute treatment of patients with resistant depression and their effect was comparable.

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of adjunctive ramelteon for the treatment of insomnia and mood stability in patients with euthymic bipolar disorder

BACKGROUND

Abnormalities in circadian rhythms are prominent features of bipolar disorder. Disrupted circadian rhythms are associated with an increased risk of relapse in bipolar disorder. Normalizing the circadian rhythm pattern of bipolar patients may improve their sleep and lead to fewer mood exacerbations. This study evaluated adjunctive ramelteon for the treatment of insomnia and mood stability in euthymic bipolar patients.

METHODS

Participants with euthymic bipolar disorder and sleep disturbances were randomized to receive adjunctive ramelteon or placebo in addition to their regular psychiatric medications for up to 24 weeks or until they experienced a relapse (defined as a depressed or manic event).

RESULTS

83 participants were randomized to receive ramelteon (n=42) or placebo (n=41). Forty participants relapsed (48.2%). Cox regression analyses indicated that participants who received ramelteon (odds ratio 0.48, p=.024) were less likely to relapse. Kaplan Meier curves also indicated longer median survival times in the ramelteon group (Mdn=188 days) versus the placebo group (Mdn=84 days) X2(1)=5.33, p=.02. There were no serious adverse events in this study.

LIMITATIONS

This was a small study with only 83 participants. The one-week window of confirmed stability is shorter than time intervals used in other studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study shows that ramelteon was effective in maintaining stability for individuals with bipolar disorder. Patients treated with ramelteon were approximately half as likely to relapse as patients treated with placebo throughout the 24-week treatment period.

Efficacy of treatment in older depressed patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of double-blind randomized controlled trials with antidepressants

BACKGROUND

This systematic review evaluated all published double-blind, randomized controlled antidepressant trials (RCTs) of acute phase treatment of older depressed patients.

METHODS

Meta-analyses were conducted in 51 double-blind RCTs of antidepressants in older patients. The results were also compared with 29 double-blind RCTs that did not produce extractable data to enter the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

All classes of antidepressant (TCA's, SSRIs and other antidepressants) were more effective than placebo in achieving response. In achieving remission however, only pooling all 3 classes of antidepressants together showed a statistically significant difference from placebo. No differences were found in remission or response rates between classes of antidepressants. TCAs were also equally effective compared with SSRIs in achieving response in more severely depressed patients. The numbers needed to treat (NNT) were 14.4 (95% CI 8.3-50) for one additional remission to antidepressants compared with placebo and 6.7 (95% CI 4.8-10) for response. The results of the double-blind RCTs that did not produce extractable data to enter the meta-analysis were in concordance with the RCTs that were included in the meta-analysis.

LIMITATIONS

Only 4 RCTs were found that have not been published. Few studies have focused on severely depressed older people.

CONCLUSIONS

Antidepressant treatment in older depressed patients is efficacious. We could not demonstrate differences in effectiveness between different classes of antidepressants; this was also the case in more severely depressed patients.

Continuation and maintenance treatments for depression in older people

BACKGROUND

Depressive illness in older people causes significant suffering and health service utilisation. Relapse and recurrence rates are high.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the efficacy of antidepressants and psychological therapies in preventing the relapse and recurrence of depression in older people.

SEARCH METHODS

Search of the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's specialized register (the CCDANCTR) up to 22 June 2012. The CCDANCTR includes relevant randomised controlled trials from the following bibliographic databases: The Cochrane Library (all years), EMBASE, (1974 to date) MEDLINE (1950 to date) and PsycINFO (1967 to date). We handsearched relevant journals, contacted experts in the field and examined reference lists, conference proceedings and bibliographies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Both review authors independently selected studies. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving people aged 60 and over successfully treated for an episode of depression and randomised to receive continuation and maintenance treatment with antidepressants, psychological therapies, or combination.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted independently by the two authors.The primary outcome was relapse/recurrence rate of depression (reaching a cut-off on any depression rating scale) at six-monthly intervals. Secondary outcomes included global impression of change, social functioning, and deaths. Meta-analysis was performed using risk ratio for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven studies met the inclusion criteria (803 participants). Six compared antidepressant medication with placebo; two involved psychological therapies. There was marked heterogeneity between the studies.Comparing antidepressants with placebo, at six months follow-up there was no significant difference. At 12 months follow-up there was a statistically significant difference favouring antidepressants in reducing recurrence compared with placebo (three RCTs, N = 247, RR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.82; NNTB = five). At 24 months there was no significant difference for antidepressants overall, however, for the subgroup of tricyclic antidepressants there was significant benefit (three RCTs, N = 169, RR = 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.99; NNTB = five). At 36 months there was no significant difference for antidepressants overall. There was no difference in treatment acceptability or death rates between antidepressant and placebo.There was no significant difference between psychological treatment and antidepressant in recurrence rates at 12, 24, and 36 months (one RCT, N = 53) or between combination and antidepressant alone.Overall, the included studies were at low risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The long-term benefits of continuing antidepressant medication in the prevention of recurrence of depression in older people are not clear and no firm treatment recommendations can be made on the basis of this review. Continuing antidepressant medication for 12 months appears to be helpful but this is based on only three small studies with relatively few participants using differing classes of antidepressants in clinically heterogeneous populations. Comparisons at other time points did not reach statistical significance. Data on psychological therapies and combined treatments are too limited to draw any conclusions.

Citalopram versus other anti-depressive agents for depression

BACKGROUND

Recent US and UK clinical practice guidelines recommend that second-generation antidepressants should be considered amongst the best first-line options when drug therapy is indicated for a depressive episode. Systematic reviews have already highlighted some differences in efficacy between second-generation antidepressants. Citalopram, one of the first selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) introduced in the market, is one of these antidepressant drugs that clinicians use for routine depression care.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence for the efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of citalopram in comparison with tricyclics, heterocyclics, other SSRIs and other conventional and non-conventional antidepressants in the acute-phase treatment of major depression.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to February 2012. No language restriction was applied. We contacted pharmaceutical companies and experts in this field for supplemental data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials allocating patients with major depression to citalopram versus any other antidepressants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data. Information extracted included study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details and outcome measures in terms of efficacy (the number of patients who responded or remitted), patient acceptability (the number of patients who failed to complete the study) and tolerability (side-effects).

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-seven trials compared citalopram with other antidepressants (such as tricyclics, heterocyclics, SSRIs and other antidepressants, either conventional ones, such as mirtazapine, venlafaxine and reboxetine, or non-conventional, like hypericum). Citalopram was shown to be significantly less effective than escitalopram in achieving acute response (odds ratio (OR) 1.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 2.02), but more effective than paroxetine (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.96) and reboxetine (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.91). Significantly fewer patients allocated to citalopram withdrew from trials due to adverse events compared with patients allocated to tricyclics (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.78) and fewer patients allocated to citalopram reported at least one side effect than reboxetine or venlafaxine (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.97 and OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.88, respectively).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Some statistically significant differences between citalopram and other antidepressants for the acute phase treatment of major depression were found in terms of efficacy, tolerability and acceptability. Citalopram was more efficacious than paroxetine and reboxetine and more acceptable than tricyclics, reboxetine and venlafaxine, however, it seemed to be less efficacious than escitalopram. As with most systematic reviews in psychopharmacology, the potential for overestimation of treatment effect due to sponsorship bias and publication bias should be borne in mind when interpreting review findings. Economic analyses were not reported in the included studies, however, cost effectiveness information is needed in the field of antidepressant trials.

Combining escitalopram with gaboxadol provides no additional benefit in the treatment of patients with severe major depressive disorder

The aim of this proof-of-concept study was to compare the efficacy of escitalopram (20 mg/d) in combination with fixed doses of gaboxadol to escitalopram (20 mg) in the treatment of patients with severe major depressive disorder (MDD). Adult patients were randomized to 8 wk of double-blind treatment with fixed doses of placebo (n=71), escitalopram (20 mg, n=140), escitalopram (20 mg)+gaboxadol (5 mg) (n=139), or escitalopram (20 mg)+gaboxadol (10 mg) (n=140). The pre-defined primary analysis of efficacy was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) of change from baseline to endpoint (week 8) in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score using last observation carried forward (LOCF). There was no statistically significant difference in the mean change from baseline in MADRS total score between the 20 mg escitalopram+10 mg gaboxadol group and the 20 mg escitalopram group [difference=-0.45 MADRS points (95% CI -2.5 to 1.6, p=0.6619, full analysis set (FAS), LOCF, ANCOVA)] at week 8. The mean treatment differences to placebo at week 8 were -5.6 (95% CI -8.0 to -3.1, p<0.0001) (20 mg escitalopram), -5.1 (95% CI -7.5 to -2.7, p<0.0001) (20 mg escitalopram+5 mg gaboxadol), and -6.0 (95% CI -8.4 to -3.6, p<0.0001) (20 mg escitalopram+10 mg gaboxadol). The most common adverse events reported in the active treatment groups for which the incidence was higher than that in the placebo group, comprised nausea, anxiety and insomnia. There were no clinically relevant efficacy differences between a combination of escitalopram and gaboxadol compared to escitalopram alone in the treatment of severe MDD. All active treatment groups were superior in efficacy to placebo and were well tolerated.

Cost-effectiveness evaluation in Sweden of escitalopram compared with venlafaxine extended-release as first-line treatment in major depressive disorder

OBJECTIVES

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a major public health concern associated with a high burden to society, the health-care system, and patients and an estimated cost of €3.5 billion in Sweden. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of escitalopram versus generic venlafaxine extended-release (XR) in MDD, accounting for the full clinical profile of each, adopting the Swedish societal perspective, and identifying major cost drivers.

METHODS

Cost-effectiveness of escitalopram versus venlafaxine XR was analyzed over a 6-month time frame, on the basis of a decision tree, for patients with MDD seeking primary care treatment in Sweden. Effectiveness outcomes for the model were quality-adjusted life-years and probability of sustained remission after acute treatment (first 8 weeks) and sustained for 6 months. Cost outcomes included direct treatment costs and indirect costs associated with sick leave.

RESULTS

Compared with generic venlafaxine XR, escitalopram was less costly and more effective in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (expected gain 0.00865) and expected 6-month sustained remission probability (incremental gain 0.0374). The better tolerability profile of escitalopram contributed to higher expected quality-adjusted life-years and lower health-care resource utilization in terms of pharmacological treatment of adverse events (though only a minor component of treatment costs). Expected per-patient saving was €169.15 for escitalopram versus venlafaxine. Cost from sick leave constituted about 85% of total costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Escitalopram was estimated as more effective and cost saving than generic venlafaxine XR in first-line MDD treatment in Sweden, driven by the effectiveness and tolerability advantages of escitalopram. The study findings are robust and in line with similar pharmacoeconomic analyses.

Escitalopram for the management of major depressive disorder: a review of its efficacy, safety, and patient acceptability

Escitalopram (escitalopram oxalate; Cipralex(®), Lexapro(®)) is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) used for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) and anxiety disorder. This drug exerts a highly selective, potent, and dose-dependent inhibitory effect on the human serotonin transport. By inhibiting the reuptake of serotonin into presynaptic nerve endings, this drug enhances the activity of serotonin in the central nervous system. Escitalopram also has allosteric activity. Moreover, the possibility of interacting with other drugs is considered low. This review covers randomized, controlled studies that enrolled adult patients with MDD to evaluate the efficacy of escitalopram based on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. The results showed that escitalopram was superior to placebo, and nearly equal or superior to other SSRIs (eg, citalopram, paroxetine, fluoxetine, sertraline) and serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (eg, duloxetine, sustained-release venlafaxine). In addition, with long-term administration, escitalopram has shown a preventive effect on MDD relapse and recurrence. Escitalopram also showed favorable tolerability, and associated adverse events were generally mild and temporary. Discontinuation symptoms were milder with escitalopram than with paroxetine. In view of the patient acceptability of escitalopram, based on both a meta-analysis and a pooled analysis, this drug was more favorable than other new antidepressants. The findings indicate that escitalopram achieved high continuity in antidepressant drug therapy.

The early improvement of depressive symptoms as a potential predictor of response to antidepressants in depressive patients who failed to respond to previous antidepressant treatments. Analysis of naturalistic data

INTRODUCTION

Current studies suggest that improvement of depressive symptoms after 2 weeks of treatment could predict the subsequent response. The aim of our study was to compare the predictive effect of early improvement (EI) after 1 and 2 weeks of treatment in patients who had failed to respond to previous antidepressant treatments (≥1 unsuccessful antidepressant trial).

METHOD

Seventy-one subjects were treated (≥4 weeks) with various antidepressants chosen according to the judgment of attending psychiatrists. We used three definitions of EI (MADRS reduction ≥20, 25, 30%) at both time points. Areas under curve (AUC) were calculated to compare predictive effect of EI.

RESULTS

We found lower MADRS scores in weeks 1 and 2 in responders (≥50% reduction of MADRS, n=35) compared to nonresponders. AUCs of MADRS reduction for response prediction at week 1 and 2 were not significantly different (0.73 vs 0.8; p=0.24).

CONCLUSION

The results indicate that improvement of depressive symptoms in the treatment of resistant patients may occur after the first week of treatment. The predictive potential might be comparable to that found after the second week of antidepressant intervention and be clinically meaningful.

Escitalopram versus risperidone for the treatment of behavioral and psychotic symptoms associated with Alzheimer's disease: a randomized double-blind pilot study

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotics are frequently used to treat psychosis, aggression and agitation in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD), but safety warnings abound. Escitalopram was investigated since citalopram has demonstrated some effectiveness in AD. We compared escitalopram and risperidone for psychotic symptoms and agitation associated with AD.

METHODS

Inpatients with AD, who had been hospitalized because of behavioral symptoms, were recruited to a six-week randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. Participants (n = 40) were randomized to once daily risperidone 1 mg or escitalopram 10 mg.

RESULTS

The NPI total score improved in both groups. Onset was earlier in the risperidone-treated group, but improvement did not significantly differ between groups by study end. Completion rates differed for escitalopram (75%) and risperidone (55%), mainly due to adverse events. There were no adverse events in the escitalopram group, while in the risperidone group two patients suffered severe extrapyramidal symptoms and four patients suffered acute physical illness necessitating transfer to general hospital.

CONCLUSION

Escitalopram and risperidone did not differ in efficacy in reducing psychotic symptoms and agitation in patients with AD. Completion rates were higher for escitalopram-treated patients. Replication in larger trials with ambulatory patients is needed.

Blue again: perturbational effects of antidepressants suggest monoaminergic homeostasis in major depression

Some evolutionary researchers have argued that current diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder (MDD) may not accurately distinguish true instances of disorder from a normal, adaptive stress response. According to disorder advocates, neurochemicals like the monoamine neurotransmitters (serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine) are dysregulated in major depression. Monoamines are normally under homeostatic control, so the monoamine disorder hypothesis implies a breakdown in homeostatic mechanisms. In contrast, adaptationist hypotheses propose that homeostatic mechanisms are properly functioning in most patients meeting current criteria for MDD. If the homeostatic mechanisms regulating monoamines are functioning properly in these patients, then oppositional tolerance should develop with prolonged antidepressant medication (ADM) therapy. Oppositional tolerance refers to the forces that develop when a homeostatic mechanism has been subject to prolonged pharmacological perturbation that attempt to bring the system back to equilibrium. When pharmacological intervention is discontinued, the oppositional forces cause monoamine levels to overshoot their equilibrium levels. Since depressive symptoms are under monoaminergic control, this overshoot should cause a resurgence of depressive symptoms that is proportional to the perturbational effect of the ADM. We test this prediction by conducting a meta-analysis of ADM discontinuation studies. We find that the risk of relapse after ADM discontinuation is positively associated with the degree to which ADMs enhance serotonin and norepinephrine in prefrontal cortex, after controlling for covariates. The results are consistent with oppositional tolerance, and provide no evidence of malfunction in the monoaminergic regulatory mechanisms in patients meeting current diagnostic criteria for MDD. We discuss the evolutionary and clinical implications of our findings.

Continuing treatment of depression in the elderly: a systematic review and meta-analysis of double-blinded randomized controlled trials with antidepressants

OBJECTIVE

To establish the efficacy and tolerability of continuing treatment with antidepressants in preventing relapses and recurrences in elderly depressed patients and to analyze differences between tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).

DESIGN

The authors conducted a systematic literature search to identify all randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded clinical trials(RCTs) in elderly patients. Data were pooled from eight double-blinded RCTs of continuation and maintenance treatment in the elderly with 925 participating patients.

RESULTS

The number of patients needed to treat (NNT) for antidepressants to prevent one additional relapse or recurrence was 3 6 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.8-4.8).The NNT for TCAs was 2.9 (95% CI: 2.2-4.6), compared with a NNT for SSRIs of 4.2(95% CI: 3.2-5.9). In the five studies that provide drop out data, 14 of 330 patients(4.2%) using an antidepressant dropped out due to side effects compared with 17 of 330 patients (5.2%) using a placebo (χ² = 0.305, df = 1, p = 0.581). Tolerability did not differ between TCAs and SSRIs.

CONCLUSION

Continuing treatment with antidepressants in elderly patients is efficacious compared with placebo in preventing relapses and recurrences. Efficacy and tolerability during long-term treatment does not differ between TCAs and SSRIs.

Efficacy and safety of escitalopram versus citalopram in major depressive disorder: a 6-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, flexible-dose study

RATIONALE

S-citalopram (escitalopram) is the very active moiety of citalopram. It has been shown in many studies to be an effective and safe antidepressant for treating major depressive disorder (MDD).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of our study was to compare the efficacy and safety of escitalopram vs citalopram in Chinese MDD patients.

METHODS

In the double-blind study, 240 MDD patients were randomly assigned to treatment for 6 weeks either with escitalopram (10-20 mg/d) or citalopram (20-40 mg/d). The primary efficacy measurement was the change of 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17) total score from baseline to the end of study. The secondary efficacy measurements were response and remission rates. The adverse events (AEs) were recorded by the investigator.

RESULTS

Two hundred and three (85%) patients completed the trial. The average dose was 13.9 mg/d in the escitalopram group and 27.6 mg/d in the citalopram group. No significant differences were found between the two groups in the change in HAMD-17 total score, response, and remission rate. These results were similar in severe MDD patients. No significant differences were found between the two groups in AEs. No serious AEs were observed in this study.

CONCLUSIONS

The study suggests that escitalopram 10-20 mg/d are as effective and safe as citalopram 20-40 mg/d in the short-term treatment for Chinese MDD patients.

Are old-old patients with major depression more likely to relapse than young-old patients during continuation treatment with escitalopram?

BACKGROUND

Escitalopram has shown efficacy and tolerability in the prevention of relapse in elderly patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). This post-hoc analysis compared time to relapse for young-old patients (n = 197) to that for old-old patients (n = 108).

METHOD

Relapse prevention: after 12-weeks open-label treatment, remitters (MADRS ≤12) were randomised to double-blind treatment with escitalopram or placebo and followed over 24-weeks. Patients were outpatients with MDD from 46 European centers aged ≥75 years (old-old) or 65-74 years of age (young-old), treated with escitalopram 10-20 mg/day. Efficacy was assessed using the Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).

RESULTS

After open-label escitalopram treatment, a similar proportion of young-old patients (78%) and old-old patients (72%) achieved remission. In the analysis of time to relapse based on the Cox model (proportional hazards regression), with treatment and age group as covariates, the hazard ratio was 4.4 for placebo versus escitalopram (χ(2)-test, df = 1, χ(2)= 22.5, p < 0.001), whereas the effect of age was not significant, with a hazard ratio of 1.2 for old-old versus young-old (χ(2)-test, df = 1, χ(2) = 0.41, p = 0.520). Escitalopram was well tolerated in both age groups with adverse events reported by 53.1% of young-old patients and 58.3% of old-old patients. There was no significant difference in withdrawal rates due to AEs between age groups (χ(2)-test, χ(2) = 1.669, df = 1, p = 0.196).

CONCLUSIONS

Young-old and old-old patients with MDD had comparable rates of remission after open-label escitalopram, and both age groups had much lower rates of relapse on escitalopram than on placebo.

Pharmacotherapy for late-life depression

The 2001 expert consensus guidelines for treating major depressive disorder (MDD) in geriatric patients recommended antidepressant treatment in combination with psychotherapy. Recent evidence continues to support the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors as first-line agents in the elderly, and although the transdermal monoamine oxidase inhibitor selegilene has shown promise in adult patients, it has not been studied in geriatric depression. Augmentation therapy with atypical antipsychotics or other agents may provide benefits for agitated, psychotic, or resistant MDD in the elderly. The few treatment studies that have been conducted in the geriatric population since the publication of the guidelines have had mixed results and high placebo response rates. More large controlled trials are needed.

Pharmacological and clinical profile of newer antidepressants: implications for the treatment of elderly patients

The pharmacological treatment of older adults with major depressive disorder presents a variety of challenges, including a relative lack of high quality studies designed to measure the efficacy and safety of antidepressants specific to this patient population. Gaining a clear understanding of how to use antidepressants in elderly patients with depression, especially new and widely used agents, would provide valuable insight to clinicians. The purpose of the current article is to review the pharmacology, efficacy and safety of newer antidepressants (i.e. escitalopram, duloxetine and desvenlafaxine) in the treatment of late-life depression. To accomplish this goal, a MEDLINE and PubMed search (1966 - February 2010) was conducted for relevant articles. Animal and human studies have clearly demonstrated the effects of desvenlafaxine, duloxetine and escitalopram on monoamine reuptake transporters. The serotonergic and noradrenergic actions of desvenlafaxine and duloxetine may provide for a faster onset of antidepressant activity in the elderly, but more definitive data are needed and the clinical effects of the possible faster onset of action need to be elucidated. Duloxetine and escitalopram are extensively metabolized via cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes and the decreased hepatic metabolism present in many older adults should be taken into account when prescribing these medications. Duloxetine possesses the greatest likelihood of producing clinically relevant drug-drug interactions because of its inhibition of CYP2D6. All three agents must also be used cautiously in older adults with poor renal function. In terms of clinical efficacy, 14 prospective published trials involving escitalopram (n = 8) and duloxetine (n = 6) in the treatment of older adults with major depressive disorder were identified. No such studies involving desvenlafaxine were found. Of the five randomized, double-blind, controlled trials, 46% and 37% of antidepressant-treated patients were considered responders and remitters, respectively. In contrast to escitalopram, duloxetine-treated patients experienced improvements in depressive symptoms that more consistently differentiated themselves from the symptoms of placebo-treated patients. Escitalopram and duloxetine were generally well tolerated, but 5-20% and 10-27% of patients, respectively, dropped out because of medication-related adverse effects. Adverse effects experienced by older adults were generally similar to those experienced by younger adults, although indirect comparisons suggest that older adults are more likely to experience dry mouth and constipation with duloxetine and escitalopram, while orthostasis may be more common in older adults prescribed desvenlafaxine. Overall, duloxetine and escitalopram represent modestly effective treatments for late-life depression that are generally well tolerated but do produce a variety of adverse effects. Conclusions regarding desvenlafaxine cannot be made at this time because of a lack of geriatric-specific data.

Escitalopram: a review of its use in the management of major depressive disorder in adults

Escitalopram (escitalopram oxalate; Cipralex, Lexapro), a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) indicated for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD), demonstrates a highly selective and potent, dose-dependent inhibition of the human serotonin transporter, inhibiting serotonin reuptake into presynaptic nerve terminals and thus increasing serotonergic activity in the CNS. With regard to primary endpoints (such as improved scores on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HAM-D]), escitalopram was generally more effective than placebo, at least as effective as citalopram, and generally at least as effective as other comparator drugs, including the SSRIs fluoxetine, paroxetine and sertraline, the serotonin-noradrenaline (norepinephrine) reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) venlafaxine extended release and duloxetine, and the aminoketone bupropion in adult patients with MDD in short-term, well designed trials. Moreover, it demonstrated a rapid onset of antidepressant action. Escitalopram was also found to be cost effective in several studies, dominating other SSRIs and venlafaxine extended release. Maintenance therapy is commonly required to prevent recurrence of depression. Long-term trials corroborated short-term results, with escitalopram demonstrating greater efficacy than placebo in relapse prevention. Additionally, escitalopram was at least as effective as citalopram, paroxetine and duloxetine in long-term comparative trials. Escitalopram has a predictable tolerability profile with generally mild to moderate and transient adverse events, and a low propensity for drug interactions. Sexual dysfunction with escitalopram treatment appeared to occur to a similar or lower extent to that with paroxetine (another SSRI), to a similar or greater extent to that with the SNRI duloxetine, and to a greater extent than that with the aminoketone bupropion. Thus, escitalopram is an effective and generally well tolerated treatment for moderate to severe MDD. Escitalopram, like other SSRIs, is an effective first-line option in the management of patients with MDD.

Meta-analysis of relapse prevention antidepressant trials in depressive disorders

OBJECTIVE

Continuation therapy with antidepressants is recommended for depressed patients who have responded to initial treatment. We quantified its efficacy in preventing relapse of depression in a meta-analysis of 54 double-blind placebo-controlled relapse prevention studies (patient n = 9268).

METHOD

Relapse prevention studies in primary depression and depression subtypes were identified in a systematic literature search. The primary efficacy comparison was relapse rates between active and placebo arms calculated as odds ratios (ORs) using Review Manager version 5.0. Effects of patient age, drug class, diagnostic system and duration of therapy on ORs was examined, along with ORs calculated using different statistical methods.

RESULTS

Continuation antidepressants produced robust reduction in relapse (OR = 0.35; 95%CI 0.32-0.39). Pooled ORs were not affected by patient age, drug class, depression subtype or treatment duration, and were similar when calculated by different statistical methods. Patients with primary depression diagnosed by earlier diagnostic systems had slightly lower ORs than those diagnosed using DSM criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis emphasizes the importance of continuation treatment following acute response in depressive disorders. The robust findings of relapse prevention designs contrast with acute antidepressant efficacy studies, and may be due to enrichment of the patient population.

Escitalopram--translating molecular properties into clinical benefit: reviewing the evidence in major depression

The majority of currently marketed drugs contain a mixture of enantiomers; however, recent evidence suggests that individual enantiomers can have pharmacological properties that differ importantly from enantiomer mixtures. Escitalopram, the S-enantiomer of citalopram, displays markedly different pharmacological activity to the R-enantiomer. This review aims to evaluate whether these differences confer any significant clinical advantage for escitalopram over either citalopram or other frequently used antidepressants. Searches were conducted using PubMed and EMBASE (up to January 2009). Abstracts of the retrieved studies were reviewed independently by both authors for inclusion. Only those studies relating to depression or major depressive disorder were included. The search identified over 250 citations, of which 21 studies and 18 pooled or meta-analyses studies were deemed suitable for inclusion. These studies reveal that escitalopram has some efficacy advantage over citalopram and paroxetine, but no consistent advantage over other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Escitalopram has at least comparable efficacy to available serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, venlafaxine XR and duloxetine, and may offer some tolerability advantages over these agents. This review suggests that the mechanistic advantages of escitalopram over citalopram translate into clinical efficacy advantages. Escitalopram may have a favourable benefit-risk ratio compared with citalopram and possibly with several other antidepressant agents.

Why do some promising brain-stimulation devices fail the next steps of clinical development?

Interest in techniques of noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) has been growing exponentially in the last decade. Recent studies have shown that some of these techniques induce significant neurophysiological and clinical effects. Although recent results are promising, there are several techniques that have been abandoned despite positive initial results. In this study, we performed a systematic review to identify NIBS methods with promising preliminary clinical results that were not fully developed and adopted into clinical practice, and discuss its clinical, research and device characteristics. We identified five devices (transmeatal cochlear laser stimulation, transcranial micropolarization, transcranial electrostimulation, cranial electric stimulation and stimulation with weak electromagnetic fields) and compared them with two established NIBS devices (transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation) and with well-known drugs used in neuropsychiatry (pramipexole and escitalopram) in order to understand the reasons why they failed to reach clinical practice and further steps of research development. Finally, we also discuss novel NIBS devices that have recently showed promising results: brain ultrasound and transcranial high-frequency random noise stimulation. Our results show that some of the reasons for the failure of NIBS devices with promising clinical findings are the difficulty to disseminate results, lack of controlled studies, duration of research development, mixed results and lack of standardization.

Healthcare utilization and costs incurred by patients with major depression after being switched from escitalopram to another SSRI for non-medical reasons

OBJECTIVE

To compare healthcare utilization and costs for major depressive disorder (MDD) patients treated with escitalopram and who were switched to another SSRI for non-medical reasons versus those who did not switch.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients were identified in the Ingenix Impact Database (2003-2006). The analysis group included patients who remained on escitalopram for ≥ 90 days and switched to another SSRI within 45 days of end of supply days for non-medical reasons; the control group included matched individuals who did not switch within 45 days. Switching for medical reasons was defined as switching within 7 days after having a hospitalization, an emergency room (ER) visit, or a psychotherapy visit. Outcomes (all-cause and MDD-related) were analyzed over 3 months and included use of hospital, ER, outpatient visits and professional services, and healthcare costs. Outcomes were compared between the two groups using descriptive statistics and regression analyses controlling for differences in baseline characteristics. Costs were inflation adjusted to 2006 US dollars.

RESULTS

The study included 2,805 matched pairs. Compared to controls, switchers had higher rates of all-cause and MDD-related hospitalizations (relative risk [RR] = 1.4 and 2.0, respectively) and all-cause and MDD-related ER visits (RR = 1.2 and 1.6, respectively, all p ≤ 0.05). Results from multivariate analyses show that switchers had higher medical costs (+$138), drug costs (+$149) and total healthcare costs (+$322) compared to patients in the control group (all p < 0.0001).

LIMITATIONS

This study's limitations include its short observational period and definition of switching for non-medical reasons.

CONCLUSION

Patients who were switched to another SSRI for non-medical reasons after being stabilized on escitalopram used more resources and had higher healthcare costs within 3 months of switching than patients who did not switch.

Aripiprazole augmentation in major depressive disorder: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study in patients with inadequate response to antidepressants

INTRODUCTION

Effective management of major depressive disorder (MDD) continues to be a challenging task for psychiatrists and primary care physicians. This trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of adjunctive aripiprazole versus antidepressant monotherapy in patients with MDD and independently replicated the positive findings of two similar trials.

METHODS

Patients (N=1,147) with MDD experiencing a major depressive episode and a history of inadequate response to antidepressant monotherapy were enrolled (week 0); 827 received single-blind adjunctive placebo plus open-label antidepressant (escitalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine controlled release, sertraline, or venlafaxine extended release) for 8 weeks to confirm inadequate response to antidepressants; 349 patients with inadequate response were randomized (1:1) to double-blind, adjunctive placebo (n=172) or adjunctive aripiprazole (n=177; 2-20 mg/day). Primary outcome was the mean change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) Total score from baseline (week 8) to endpoint (week 14).

RESULTS

Clinically significant improvements in depressive symptoms as assessed by decreases in the MADRS Total score were greater with adjunctive aripiprazole (-10.1) than placebo (-6.4; P<.001). Remission rates were greater for adjunctive aripiprazole than for adjunctive placebo (week 14, 36.8% vs 18.9%; P<.001). Completion rates with adjunctive aripiprazole and placebo were high (83% vs. 87%) and discontinuations due to adverse events were low (6.2% vs 1.7%).

CONCLUSION

For some patients with MDD who do not obtain adequate symptom relief with antidepressant monotherapy, adjunctive therapies can significantly improve depressive symptoms. As reported, adjunctive aripiprazole was associated with a two-fold higher remission rate than adjunctive placebo. This, and previous studies, have shown that discontinuations due to adverse events were low and completion rates were high, and has indicated that both antidepressant and aripiprazole in combination were relatively well-tolerated and safe. This is the third consecutive clinical trial, in the absence of a failed trial, to demonstrate that aripiprazole augmentation to antidepressants is an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment for patients with MDD who do not respond adequately to standard antidepressant monotherapy (ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT00105196).