Guarding the Gate: Remote Structured Assessments to Enhance Enrollment Precision in Depression Trials

Antidepressants in the acute treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Currently, there are few pharmacotherapy options for clinicians treating post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and antidepressants are usually the medication of choice. This meta-analysis aimed to review the efficacy of antidepressants in the acute treatment of PTSD in adults while investigating the contribution of study design and placebo response to the findings of these studies. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials that compared antidepressants with placebo for acute treatment of PTSD were selected. Standardized mean difference (SMD) in change in Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale scores were pooled after examining for heterogeneity. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Twenty-nine antidepressant-placebo comparisons, involving 4575 subjects, were analyzed. The SMD among all studies was 0.25, a small to medium effect size, lower than that in studies of antidepressants in adult major depressive disorder. The SMDs for low and high mean placebo responses, were 0.27 and 0.22, respectively. The overall SMD for paroxetine studies was in the moderate range (0.43) and that for sertraline studies was in the small range (0.12). Our findings suggest that antidepressants have modest efficacy in alleviating PTSD symptoms. Patient-level meta-analyses are required to further explore the potential clinical relevance of sertraline for PTSD.

How should we design future mechanistic and/or efficacy clinical trials?

The emergence of new molecular targets, together with the development of new approaches to neuropsychiatric diseases, involving psychedelics as well as gene and cell therapies, are creating the need to improve the efficiency of mechanistic and/or efficacy clinical trials. This review article will discuss a number of issues that have hampered our ability to detect therapeutic signals, from excessive placebo/sham response rates to the imprecision of diagnostic and outcome assessments. In addition to reviewing the limitations of current efficacy and mechanistic neuropsychiatric clinical trials, this review presents some of the methodological approaches that may improve the overall performance of our neuropsychiatric trials, including the adoption of novel study designs such as the sequential parallel comparison design and independent confirmation of the appropriateness of subjects' enrollment. In addition, this review will discuss several designs that make mechanistic clinical trials more precise.

Interpreting clinical trial outcomes complicated by placebo response with an assessment of false-negative and true-negative clinical trials in depression using propensity-weighting

The objective of this study was to evaluate the performances of the propensity score weighted (PSW) methodology in a post-hoc re-analysis of a failed and a negative RCTs in depressive disorders. The conventional study designs, randomizations, and statistical approaches do not account for the baseline distribution of major non-specific prognostic and confounding factors such as the individual propensity to show a placebo effect (PE). Therefore, the conventional analysis approaches implicitly assume that the baseline PE is the same for all subjects in the trial even if this assumption is not supported by our knowledge on the impact of PE on the estimated treatment effect (TE). The consequence of this assumption is an inflation of false negative results (type II error) in presence of a high proportion of subjects with high PE and an inflation of false positive (type I error) in presence of a high proportion of subjects with low PE value. Differently from conventional approaches, the inverse of the PE probability was used as weight in the mixed-effects analysis to assess TE in the PSW analysis. The results of this analysis indicated an enhanced signal of drug response in a failed trial and confirmed the absence of drug effect in a negative trial. This approach can be considered as a reference prospective or post-hoc analysis approach that minimize the risk of inflating either type I or type II error in contrast to what happens in the analyses of RCT studies conducted with the conventional statistical methodology.

The future of psychopharmacology: a critical appraisal of ongoing phase 2/3 trials, and of some current trends aiming to de-risk trial programmes of novel agents

Despite considerable progress in pharmacotherapy over the past seven decades, many mental disorders remain insufficiently treated. This situation is in part due to the limited knowledge of the pathophysiology of these disorders and the lack of biological markers to stratify and individualize patient selection, but also to a still restricted number of mechanisms of action being targeted in monotherapy or combination/augmentation treatment, as well as to a variety of challenges threatening the successful development and testing of new drugs. In this paper, we first provide an overview of the most promising drugs with innovative mechanisms of action that are undergoing phase 2 or 3 testing for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, anxiety and trauma-related disorders, substance use disorders, and dementia. Promising repurposing of established medications for new psychiatric indications, as well as variations in the modulation of dopamine, noradrenaline and serotonin receptor functioning, are also considered. We then critically discuss the clinical trial parameters that need to be considered in depth when developing and testing new pharmacological agents for the treatment of mental disorders. Hurdles and perils threatening success of new drug development and testing include inadequacy and imprecision of inclusion/exclusion criteria and ratings, sub-optimally suited clinical trial participants, multiple factors contributing to a large/increasing placebo effect, and problems with statistical analyses. This information should be considered in order to de-risk trial programmes of novel agents or known agents for novel psychiatric indications, increasing their chances of success.

The role of placebo response in the efficacy outcome assessment in viloxazine extended-release pivotal trials in paediatric subjects with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

AIMS

Four Phase 3 studies evaluated efficacy and safety of viloxazine extended-release in the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The primary efficacy objective-change from baseline in ADHD Rating Scale-5 (ADHD-RS-5) Total score at end of study (EOS)-was not met in one of the studies (812P304). A band-pass analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of placebo response on the results.

METHODS

The distribution of placebo response at EOS of each trial was evaluated. The 2.5^th and 97.5^th percentiles of the distribution of ADHD-RS-5 Total score were used as boundaries for the band-pass analysis. An independent mixed model for repeated measures analysis was conducted for each trial using all eligible data (active and placebo) from the total and band-pass filtered populations.

RESULTS

The 2.5^th and 97.5^th percentiles at EOS were 3.5 and 53.5, respectively. Application of the band-pass filter (filtering out all subjects [active, n = 305 (32.1%) and placebo, n = 134 (33.5%)] of clinical sites with placebo scores <3.5 or >53.5) revealed statistically significant improvement at the primary endpoint (600-mg/d viloxazine ER vs. placebo) in Study 812P304 (mean [confidence interval] = 4.9537 [0.5405-9.3669]), previously masked by a high placebo response (mean [confidence interval] = 3.5756 [-0.3332-7.4844]). The outcome of the analysis indicated that the impact of the band-pass adjustment is greater when placebo response is higher.

CONCLUSION

This analysis indicated that a higher placebo response in Study 812P304 confounded the assessment of treatment effect. Application of the band-pass methodology confirmed the positive results of the 3 prior studies and the signal detection confounder in the fourth study.

Staging of unipolar depression: systematic review and discussion of clinical implications

Staging has been increasingly used in unipolar depression since its introduction in the nineties. Several models are available, but their differential features and implications are not completely clear. We systematically reviewed: (a) staging models of longitudinal development of unipolar depression; (b) staging models of treatment-resistant unipolar depression; (c) their applications. MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and Web of Science were examined according to PRISMA guidelines from inception to December 2021. Search terms were: 'stage/staging', combined using the Boolean 'AND' operator with 'psychiatric disorder/mental disorder/depressive/mood disorder'. A total of 169 studies were identified for inclusion: 18 described staging models or applications, 151 described treatment-resistant staging models or applications. Staging models of longitudinal development were found to play a key role in formulating sequential treatment, with particular reference to the use of psychotherapy after pharmacotherapy. Staging methods based on treatment resistance played a crucial role in setting entry criteria for randomized clinical trials and neurobiological investigations. Staging is part of clinimetrics, the science of clinical measurements, and its role can be enhanced by its association with other clinimetric strategies, such as repeated assessments, organization of problematic areas, and evaluation of phenomena that may affect responsiveness. In research, it may allow to identify more homogeneous populations in terms of treatment history that may diminish the likelihood of spurious results in comparisons. In clinical practice, the use of staging in a clinimetric perspective allows clinicians to make full use of the information that is available for an individual patient at a specific time.

Effect of AXS-05 (Dextromethorphan-Bupropion) in Major Depressive Disorder: A Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

Altered glutamatergic neurotransmission is implicated in the pathogenesis of major depressive disorder. AXS-05 (dextromethorphan-bupropion) is an oral NMDA receptor antagonist and sigma-1 receptor agonist, which utilizes inhibition of CYP2D6 to increase its bioavailability. This phase 2 trial assessed the efficacy and safety of dextromethorphan-bupropion in the treatment of major depressive disorder.

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, multicenter, parallel-group trial evaluated dextromethorphan-bupropion versus the active comparator sustained-release bupropion in patients 18-65 years old with a diagnosis of major depressive disorder of moderate or greater severity. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either dextromethorphan-bupropion (45 mg/105 mg tablet) or bupropion (105 mg tablet), once daily for the first 3 days and twice daily thereafter, for a total of 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall treatment effect on Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score (average of the change from baseline for weeks 1-6), assessed in all randomized patients whose diagnosis and severity were confirmed by an independent assessor and who received at least one dose of study medication and had at least one postbaseline assessment.

RESULTS

Of 97 patients randomized, 17 did not have a confirmed diagnosis and severity based on the independent assessment, resulting in 80 patients in the efficacy population (dextromethorphan-bupropion, N=43; bupropion, N=37). The mean change from baseline in MADRS score over weeks 1-6 (overall treatment effect) was significantly greater with dextromethorphan-bupropion than with bupropion (-13.7 points vs. -8.8 points; least-squares mean difference=-4.9; 95% CI=-3.1, -6.8). MADRS score change with dextromethorphan-bupropion was significantly greater than with bupropion at week 2 and every time point thereafter (week 6: -17.3 vs. -12.1 points; least-squares mean difference=-5.2, 95% CI=-1.1, -9.3). Remission rates were significantly greater with dextromethorphan-bupropion at week 2 and every time point thereafter (week 6: 46.5% vs. 16.2%; least-squares mean difference=30.3%, 95% CI=11.2, 49.4). Response rates (≥50% decrease in MADRS score from baseline) at week 6 were 60.5% with dextromethorphan-bupropion and 40.5% with bupropion (least-squares mean difference=19.9%, 95% CI=-1.6, 41). Most secondary outcomes favored dextromethorphan-bupropion. The most common adverse events with dextromethorphan-bupropion were dizziness, nausea, dry mouth, decreased appetite, and anxiety. Dextromethorphan-bupropion was not associated with psychotomimetic effects, weight gain, or sexual dysfunction.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with major depression, dextromethorphan-bupropion (AXS-05) significantly improved depressive symptoms compared with bupropion and was generally well tolerated.

Antidepressants in children and adolescents with major depressive disorder and the influence of placebo response: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There are few available antidepressants for pediatric Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to review industry-funded studies of antidepressants in children and adolescents with MDD, and to better understand the contribution of study design and placebo response to the findings of these studies.

METHODS

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials that compared antidepressant with placebo for the acute treatment of MDD in children and/or adolescents were selected. Estimates of the standardized mean difference (SMD) in change in Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised scores were pooled, after examining for heterogeneity. A random-effects meta-analysis was completed.

RESULTS

Thirty-four antidepressant-placebo comparisons, involving 6161 subjects, were included. The SMD among all studies was 0.12 (CI 0.08, 0.17; p < 0.001), a very small effect size, lower than that seen in studies of adults with MDD. When the meta-analysis was limited to studies with a low mean placebo response, the SMD increased to 0.19 and further increased to 0.22 when studies with at least a 50% chance of receiving placebo were included.

LIMITATIONS

Many studies focused on older children and younger adolescents. Our findings may not reflect antidepressant efficacy in older adolescents.

CONCLUSIONS

The modest SMD identified in this analysis may reflect study design factors and the application of antidepressants developed for adults to pediatric patients. Given the urgent clinical need for more pediatric MDD treatments, the influence of placebo response and the need for drug development tailored to this population should be considered in pediatric MDD trial design.

Pimavanserin for negative symptoms of schizophrenia: results from the ADVANCE phase 2 randomised, placebo-controlled trial in North America and Europe

BACKGROUND

Negative symptoms of schizophrenia are associated with adverse clinical outcomes, but there are few effective treatments. We aimed to assess the effects of pimavanserin, a selective 5-HT_2A inverse agonist and antagonist, on negative symptoms of schizophrenia.

METHODS

The ADVANCE study was a phase 2, 26-week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of pimavanserin in stable outpatients with schizophrenia aged 18-55 years with predominant negative symptoms. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) across 83 sites (18 in North America and 65 in Europe) to receive pimavanserin or placebo daily, added to an ongoing antipsychotic medication, per a computer-generated schedule (stratification by geographical region). Eligible patients had a score of at least 20 on the sum of seven Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) Marder negative factor items (and scores of ≥4 on at least three or ≥5 on at least two of negative symptom items). The starting dosage of 20 mg of pimavanserin or placebo could be adjusted to 34 mg or 10 mg within the first 8 weeks of the study, after which dosage remained stable until the end of the study. Both pimavanserin and placebo were administered orally once daily as two individual tablets (pimavanserin tablets were either 10 mg or 17 mg). The primary endpoint was change in total score using the 16-item Negative Symptom Assessment (NSA-16) from baseline to week 26. Primary outcomes were analysed in patients who received at least one dose of the study drug and had NSA-16 assessments at baseline and at least once post-baseline (full analysis set). Safety outcomes were analysed in patients who had received at least one dose of the study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02970305, and is complete.

FINDINGS

Between Nov 4, 2016, and April 16, 2019, we randomly assigned 403 patients to pimavanserin (n=201; 131 [65%] male; 187 [93%] White) or placebo (n=202; 137 [68%] male, 186 (92%) White), of whom 400 were included in the efficacy analysis (199 in the pimavanserin group, 201 in the placebo group). Mean age was 37·7 years (SD 9·4) in the pimavanserin group and 36·7 (9·2) years in the placebo group. The change in total NSA-16 score from baseline to week 26 was significantly improved with pimavanserin (least squares mean -10·4 [SE 0·67]) versus placebo (least squares mean -8·5 [0·67]; p=0·043; effect size: 0·211). The number of patients with treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was similar between groups: 80 (40%) patients experienced TEAEs in the pimavanserin group and 71 (35%) in the placebo group. Most TEAEs were headache (6% [n=13] vs 5% [n=10]) and somnolence (5% [n=11] vs 5% [n=10]). One patient from the placebo group reported severe headache (0·5%), rhinorrhoea (0·5%), cough (0·5%), and influenza (0·5%). In the pimavanserin group, one patient reported severe toothache (0·5%), and two patients had worsening of schizophrenia (1%). Mean change in QTcF interval was higher with pimavanerin (4·5 ms [SD 18·0]) than with placebo (0·0 ms [16·0]).

INTERPRETATION

Stable patients with predominant negative symptoms of schizophrenia showed a reduction in negative symptoms after treatment with pimavanserin. However, given the small effect size, further investigation with optimised dosing is warranted to determine the clinical significance of this effect.

FUNDING

Acadia Pharmaceuticals.

Low-Dose Testosterone Augmentation for Antidepressant-Resistant Major Depressive Disorder in Women: An 8-Week Randomized Placebo-Controlled Study

OBJECTIVE

Low-dose testosterone has been shown to improve depression symptom severity, fatigue, and sexual function in small studies in women not formally diagnosed with major depressive disorder. The authors sought to determine whether adjunctive low-dose transdermal testosterone improves depression symptom severity, fatigue, and sexual function in women with antidepressant-resistant major depression. A functional MRI (fMRI) substudy examined effects on activity in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), a brain region important in mood regulation.

METHODS

The authors conducted an 8-week randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of adjunctive testosterone cream in 101 women, ages 21-70, with antidepressant-resistant major depression. The primary outcome measure was depression symptom severity as assessed by the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Secondary endpoints included fatigue, sexual function, and safety measures. The primary outcome of the fMRI substudy (N=20) was change in ACC activity.

RESULTS

The participants' mean age was 47 years (SD=14) and their mean baseline MADRS score was 26.6 (SD=5.9). Eighty-seven (86%) participants completed 8 weeks of treatment. MADRS scores decreased in both study arms from baseline to week 8 (testosterone arm: from 26.8 [SD=6.3] to 15.3 [SD=9.6]; placebo arm: from 26.3 [SD=5.4] to 14.4 [SD=9.3]), with no significant difference between groups. Improvement in fatigue and sexual function did not differ between groups, nor did side effects. fMRI results showed a relationship between ACC activation and androgen levels before treatment but no difference in ACC activation with testosterone compared with placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjunctive transdermal testosterone, although well tolerated, was not more effective than placebo in improving symptoms of depression, fatigue, or sexual dysfunction. Imaging in a subset of participants demonstrated that testosterone did not result in greater activation of the ACC.

Trends in (not) using scales in major depression: A categorization and clinical orientation

Background

Standard depression rating scales like the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale were developed more than 40 years ago. They are mandatory in clinical trials but are for a variety of reasons seldom used in clinical practice. Moreover, most clinicians are less familiar with more recent trends or with some dilemmas in assessment tools for major depression.

Methods

Narrative review.

Results

Asssessment tools can be observer-rating or self-rating scales, disease-specific or non–disease-specific scales, subjective scales or objective lab assessments, standard questionnaires or experience sampling methods. An overarching question is to what degree current assessment methods really address the individual patient’s needs and treatment expectations.

Conclusions

The present paper aims to offer a framework for understanding the current trends in assessment tools that can orientate and guide the clinician.

Randomized, controlled, participant- and rater-blind trial of pharmacogenomic test-guided treatment versus treatment as usual for major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND

Cohort and cost-effectiveness studies suggest that measuring variation in genes that influence metabolism of common drugs could improve antidepressant treatment outcomes. Prior randomized trials have yielded inconsistent results.

METHOD

Multicenter randomized double-blind (subject and rater), controlled trial of pharmacogenomic testing among outpatients with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder. Study participants (n = 304) were randomized 1:1 to assay-guided treatment (AGT; N = 151) or treatment-as-usual (TAU; N = 153). Participants and raters were blinded to study arm; unblinded clinicians received results of a pharmacogenomic test and adjusted treatment in light of the test report. Primary outcome was change over 8 weeks in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (SIGH-D-17).

RESULTS

For the primary comparison of interest, change in SIGH-D-17, no significant difference was detected between AGT and TAU at Week 8 (p = .53). Rates of study completion also did not differ between the arms (AGT 92.7%, TAU 92.2% (χ²  = 0.03, df = 1, p = .86). Exploratory analyses suggested significantly fewer individuals experienced worsening of depressive symptoms following AGT, and that treatment concordant with assay results was associated with greater likelihood of remission.

CONCLUSION

Pharmacogenomic testing using a panel of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic variants was not associated with significant improvement in the primary efficacy outcome when providers were unconstrained by the assay results. Further investigation is needed to understand the discordance with cost-effectiveness results and among randomized trials.

Validity of the Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ) as a screening tool for bipolar spectrum disorders in anabaptist populations

The Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ) is an established screening tool for bipolar spectrum disorders (BSD), but has not been validated in diverse populations and the best scoring method remains uncertain. This study assessed diagnostic validity of the MDQ among Anabaptists, an underserved population frequently involved in genetic research. 161 participants completed the MDQ and were diagnosed by a best-estimate final diagnosis (BEFD). Diagnostic agreements between alternate MDQ scoring methods and the BEFD were quantified using Cohen's Kappa (κ), sensitivity (α), and specificity (β). Scoring criteria evaluated included >7 simultaneous symptoms and at least moderate impairment, >7 simultaneous symptoms, with at least mild impairment, >7 symptoms only, with no further requirement, and three novel scoring methods that require >5 symptoms or fewer. Diagnostic agreement varied. The original method proved most specific but had the lowest κ and sensitivity. κ increased with more liberal scoring criteria, reaching a maximum under the lower-threshold symptom methods, with little loss of specificity in the 5-symptom method. Decreasing the symptom threshold below 5 conferred little or no benefit. These results support the diagnostic validity of the MDQ among this Anabaptist sample and suggest that a 5-symptom scoring method may increase diagnostic sensitivity in populations at high risk for bipolar disorder.

Have Treatment Studies of Depression Become Even Less Generalizable? Applying the Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria in Placebo-Controlled Antidepressant Efficacy Trials Published over 20 Years to a Clinical Sample

BACKGROUND

Antidepressants are amongst the most frequently prescribed medications. More than a decade ago, our clinical research group applied a prototypic set of inclusion/exclusion criteria used in an antidepressant efficacy trial (AET) to patients presenting for treatment in our outpatient practice and found that most patients would not qualify for the trial. In the present report from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project, we apply the psychiatric inclusion/exclusion criteria used in 158 placebo-controlled studies to a large sample of depressed patients who presented for outpatient treatment to determine the range and extent of the representativeness of samples treated in AETs and whether this has changed over time.

METHOD

We applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria used in 158 AETs to 1,271 patients presenting to an outpatient practice who received a principal diagnosis of major depressive disorder. The patients underwent a thorough diagnostic evaluation.

RESULTS

Across all 158 studies, the percentage of patients that would have been excluded ranged from 44.4 to 99.8% (mean = 86.1%). The percentage of patients that would have been excluded was significantly higher in the studies published in 2010 through 2014 compared to the studies published from 1995 to 2009 (91.4 vs. 83.8%, t(156) = 3.74, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Only a minority of depressed patients seen in clinical practice are likely to be eligible for most AETs. The generalizability of AETs has decreased over time. It is unclear how generalizable the results of AETs are to patients treated in real-world clinical practice.

A phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of NSI-189 phosphate, a neurogenic compound, among outpatients with major depressive disorder

NSI-189 is a novel neurogenic compound independent of monoamine reuptake pathways. This trial evaluated oral NSI-189 as monotherapy in major depressive disorder. To improve signal detection, the sequential-parallel comparison design (SPCD) was chosen. Two hundred and twenty subjects were randomized to NSI-189 40 mg daily, 80 mg daily, or placebo for 12 weeks. The primary outcome measure was the Montogmery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Secondary subject-rated measures included the Symptoms of Depression Questionnaire (SDQ), the Cognitive and Physical Functioning Scale (CPFQ), the patient-rated version of the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology Scale (QIDS-SR), and subtests from the CogScreen and Cogstate cognitive tests. MADRS score reduction versus placebo did not reach significance for either dose (40 mg pooled mean difference -1.8, p = 0.22, 80 mg pooled mean difference -1.4, p = 0.34, respectively). However, the 40 mg dose showed greater overall reduction in SDQ (pooled mean difference -8.2; Cohen's d for Stages 1 and 2 = -0.11 and -0.64, p = 0.04), and CPFQ scores (pooled mean difference -1.9; Cohen's d for Stages 1 and 2 = -0.28 and -0.47, p = 0.03) versus placebo, as well as QIDS-SR scores in Stage 2 of SPCD (-2.5; Cohen's d Stages 1 and 2 = -0.03 and -0.68, p = 0.04). The 40 mg dose also showed advantages on some objective cognitive measures of the CogScreen (absolute Cohen's d ranged between 0.12 and 1.12 in favor of NSI-189, p values between 0.002 and 0.048 for those with overall significance), but not the Cogstate test. Both doses were well tolerated. These findings replicate those of phase 1b study, and warrant further exploration of the antidepressant and pro-cognitive effects of NSI-189.

Neural Predictors of the Antidepressant Placebo Response

The antidepressant placebo response remains a barrier to the development of novel therapies for depression, despite decades of efforts to identify and methodologically address its clinical correlates. This manuscript reviews recent neuroimaging studies that aim to identify the neural signature of antidepressant placebo response. Data captured in clinical trials have primarily focused on antidepressant efficacy or predicting antidepressant response and have reliably implicated the rostral anterior cingulate cortex (rACC) in antidepressant placebo response, but also in medication response. Imaging and electroencephalography (EEG) experiments specifically interrogating the mechanism of antidepressant placebo response, while few, suggest the reward network, including opiate neurotransmission, is also involved. Therefore, while the rACC is likely involved in the antidepressant placebo response, its observation in isolation is unlikely to prospectively distinguish antidepressant placebo from medication responders. Instead, future studies of antidepressant placebo response should probe the reward network as a whole and incorporate sophisticated computational analytical approaches.

WITHDRAWN: Size Does Matter, But It Isn't Everything: The Challenge of Modest Treatment Effects in Chronic Pain Clinical Trials

Available online This article has been withdrawn at the request of the author(s) and/or editor. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/article-withdrawal.

Current and Common Definitions of Treatment-Resistant Depression: Findings from a Systematic Review and Qualitative Interviews

OBJECTIVE

No universal definition for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) exists. This lack of consensus reduces the generalizability of study findings and limits the ability to study TRD. In addition, anecdotally, there may be a difference between the definitions of TRD within research and those applied in practice. Thus, the objective of this work was to identify current common definitions of TRD used in both research and clinical practice.

METHOD

A systematic review of published literature was conducted to document TRD definitions. Extracted data were grouped based on patient cohort and method of defining TRD. Validation studies were narratively summarized. Interviews with 6 key informants were conducted to understand how definitions are applied in practice.

RESULTS

In total, 155 definitions for TRD were identified in the published literature, and 48.4% of all definitions specified requirement of at least 2 treatment failures. Key informant interviews indicated the concept of TRD is rarely employed in clinical practice. Instead, concepts like "complex needs," "struggling with their disease," and "chronic" are used. When asked directly about how they would define TRD, interview participants said an adequate trial of psychotherapy as well as an adequate trial of at least 2 to 3 antidepressant medications.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no universally accepted definition of TRD, and substantial heterogeneity exists. This study indicates discordance between the use of the term in research and clinical practice, with several key informants emphasizing that the terminology is rarely used in their clinical experience. Development of a shared, common definition across practice and research is required.

A Novel Strategy to Identify Placebo Responders: Prediction Index of Clinical and Biological Markers in the EMBARC Trial

BACKGROUND

One in three clinical trial patients with major depressive disorder report symptomatic improvement with placebo. Strategies to mitigate the effect of placebo responses have focused on modifying study design with variable success. Identifying and excluding or controlling for individuals with a high likelihood of responding to placebo may improve clinical trial efficiency and avoid unnecessary medication trials.

METHODS

Participants included those assigned to the placebo arm (n = 141) of the Establishing Moderators and Biosignatures for Antidepressant Response in Clinical Care (EMBARC) trial. The elastic net was used to evaluate 283 baseline clinical, behavioral, imaging, and electrophysiological variables to identify the most robust yet parsimonious features that predicted depression severity at the end of the double-blind 8-week trial. Variables retained in at least 50% of the 100 imputed data sets were used in a Bayesian multiple linear regression model to simultaneously predict the probabilities of response and remission.

RESULTS

Lower baseline depression severity, younger age, absence of melancholic features or history of physical abuse, less anxious arousal, less anhedonia, less neuroticism, and higher average theta current density in the rostral anterior cingulate predicted a higher likelihood of improvement with placebo. The Bayesian model predicted remission and response with an actionable degree of accuracy (both AUC > 0.73). An interactive calculator was developed predicting the likelihood of placebo response at the individual level.

CONCLUSION

Easy-to-measure clinical, behavioral, and electrophysiological assessments can be used to identify placebo responders with a high degree of accuracy. Development of this calculator based on these findings can be used to identify potential placebo responders.

Medications for substance use disorders (SUD): emerging approaches

INTRODUCTION

Substance use disorders are a group of chronic relapsing disorders of the brain, which have massive public health and societal impact. In some disorders (e.g., heroin/prescription opioid addictions) approved medications have a major long-term benefit. For other substances (e.g., cocaine, amphetamines and cannabis) there are no approved medications, and for alcohol there are approved treatments, which are not in wide usage. Approved treatments for tobacco use disorders are available, and novel medications are also under study. Areas covered: Medication-based approaches which are in advanced preclinical stages, or which have reached proof-of concept clinical laboratory studies, as well as clinical trials. Expert opinion: Current challenges involve optimizing translation between preclinical and clinical development, and between clinical laboratory studies to therapeutic clinical trials. Comorbidities including depression or anxiety are challenges for study design and analysis. Improved pharmacogenomics, biomarker and phenotyping approaches are areas of interest. Pharmacological mechanisms currently under investigation include modulation of glutamatergic, GABA, vasopressin and κ-receptor function, as well as inhibition of monoamine re-uptake. Other factors that affect potential market size for emerging medications include stigma, availability of treatment settings, adoption by clinicians, and the prevalence of persons with SUD who are not actively treatment-seeking.