Melancholic Symptoms in Bipolar II Depression and Responsiveness to Lamotrigine in an Exploratory Pilot Study

Revisiting the concept of bipolar depression: comparison of diagnostic validators between melancholic and non-melancholic episodes

The current definition of bipolar disorder derives with minimal changes from one that emerged through expert consensus in the late 1970s, and the topic of its validity tended to be neglected in the literature. The aim of this exploratory study was to compare patients with bipolar disorder with a history of melancholic and non-melancholic depressive episodes in a series of external diagnostic validators. One hundred eight subjects were categorized as melancholic or non-melancholic in relation to their history of depressive episodes through the clinician-rated Sydney Melancholia Prototype Index (SMPI). The external validators used were clinical-demographic variables, family history of bipolar disorder, neurocognitive performance and functional outcome. There were 43.5% of the patients with a history of melancholia and 56.5% of non-melancholic depression. Non-melancholic depressions were overrepresented in females, while melancholic depressions had a female:male ratio closer to unity. Patients with melancholia had more history of BD in first-degree relatives and better functional outcome than those with non-melancholic depression. There were no differences between groups regarding neurocognitive performance. Results tended to be unchanged when controlled for confounders. Our preliminary results highlight the inherent heterogeneity in the current concept of bipolar depression, and suggest the need for further clinical research to elucidate its validity.

Changes of cortical thickness in the first episode, drug-naive depression patients with and without melancholic features

Melancholic depression (MD) is a more severe type of major depressive disorder (MDD) with a core feature of anhedonia. However, its pathophysiology remains unclear. The current study aims to investigate whether there is a significant difference in cortical thickness (CT) that can be used to differentiate MD patients from non-melancholic depression (NMD) patients. We recruited 137 first-episode drug-naive MDD patients and 75 healthy controls (HCs) for structural magnetic resonance imaging, analyzed using the Surface-based morphometry approach. Meanwhile, the MDD patients were divided into the MD and NMD subgroups according to their scores on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. No significant CT differences among the three groups were found. We also did not find significant CT changes between the NMD and the HCs groups or between the MD and NMD groups. However, the CT of the left postcentral gyrus and right precuneus among MD patients were larger than HCs. Moreover, the CT of the left postcentral gyrus and right precuneus were not correlated with the severity of the disease and illness duration. The findings suggest that the CT alterations of the left postcentral gyrus and the right precuneus are distinct pathological mechanisms for MD.

Bipolar Depression: A Historical Perspective of the Current Concept, with a Focus on Future Research

The aim of this narrative review is to trace the origin of the concept of bipolar depression and to expose some of its limitations. Bipolar depression is a broad clinical construct including experiences ranging from traditional melancholic and psychotic episodes ascribed to "manic-depressive insanity," to another heterogeneous group of depressive episodes originally described in the context of binary models of unipolar depression (e.g., psychogenic depression, neurotic depression). None of the available empirical evidence suggests, however, that these subsets of "bipolar" depression are equivalent in terms of clinical course, disability, family aggregation, and response to treatment, among other relevant diagnostic validators. Therefore, the validity of the current concept of bipolar depression should be a matter of concern. Here, we discuss some of the potential limitations that this broad construct might entail in terms of pathophysiological, clinical, and therapeutic aspects. Finally, we propose a clinical research program for bipolar depression in order to delimit diagnostic entities based on empirical data, with subsequent validation by laboratory or neuroimaging biomarkers. This process will then aid in the development of more specific treatments.

Lamotrigine for acute bipolar depression: An exploratory item-level analysis

OBJECTIVES

Lamotrigine is used to treat bipolar depression despite inconsistent evidence. Here we present the results of an exploratory item-level analysis of pooled data from five randomized placebo-controlled trials of lamotrigine for acute bipolar depression. The goal was to determine if certain depression scale items were more responsive to lamotrigine treatment.

METHODS

The pooled sample contained 1072 adult outpatients treated for up to 7-10 weeks. Depressive symptoms were measured with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale. Change scores on individual scale items were compared between treatment groups.

RESULTS

There were statistically significant effects on items assessing depressed mood/sadness, lack of interest/anhedonia, pessimism/guilt, and anergia/fatigue, on both scales. However, there was marked variation in the baseline symptom prevalence, and items with higher scores at baseline tended to have larger and statistically significant treatment effects.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggested a significant treatment effect on core symptoms of depression. A floor effect appeared to limit the sensitivity of other scale items. Given the exploratory nature of the analysis, firm conclusions cannot be drawn, although the results were consistent with past research. Relying on total depression scale sum scores over targeted assessments of core depressive symptoms may have impeded signal detection in the original trials.

Physical and social anhedonia are associated with suicidality in major depression, but not in schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE

This cross-sectional study investigated the association of physical and social anhedonia with suicidality in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), schizophrenia, and in non-psychiatric controls.

METHOD

All participants completed the revised Physical Anhedonia Scale (RPAS) and the revised Social Anhedonia Scale (RSAS) and were subdivided according to positive life-time suicide attempt history. MDD patients were evaluated with the Montgomery-Ãsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), healthy respondents with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), and schizophrenia patients with the Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS).

RESULTS

In 683 study participants, the prevalence of each anhedonia was the highest in MDD, followed by schizophrenia, and lowest in the control group. Among MDD patients, those with physical and social anhedonia had greater rates of recent suicidal ideation, while a higher frequency of individuals with life-time suicide attempts was detected in those with only social anhedonia. In contrast, no association between either anhedonia and life-time suicide attempts or recent suicidal ideation was found in patients with schizophrenia.

CONCLUSIONS

Assessing social and physical anhedonia might be important in MDD patients, given its association with both life-time suicide attempts and recent suicidal ideation. Suicidality in schizophrenia, while unrelated to anhedonia, might include other risk factors.

Melancholic Features in Bipolar Depression and Response to Lamotrigine: A Pooled Analysis of Five Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

A pilot study suggested lamotrigine may be more effective for bipolar depression with melancholic features. We tested this hypothesis in a pooled analysis of 5 randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials of lamotrigine for acute bipolar depression.

METHODS

The pooled sample consisted of 1072 adult outpatients. Depressive symptoms were assessed for 7 to 10 weeks with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale. The outcome measure was end-trial response (score reduction ≥ 50%). Melancholic features were assessed with both the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV and baseline depression scale items, according to DSM criteria.

RESULTS

The item-based melancholic specifier was associated with numerically larger treatment effects, although subgroup-treatment interactions in logistic regression models did not reach statistical significance. The small subgroup of patients with severe psychomotor retardation also appeared to benefit from lamotrigine. However, the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV melancholic specifier was not associated with larger treatment effects. Baseline depression severity was inconsistently associated with response, depending on which scale was used to define severity. The 2 melancholia variables had poor agreement despite having similar prevalences.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results do not clearly support the original hypothesis but do reinforce the importance of replicating secondary analyses of clinical trials with additional data.

Antidepressant responses in direct comparisons of melancholic and non-melancholic depression

BACKGROUND

Efforts to develop less heterogeneous, more clinically useful diagnostic categories for depressive disorders include renewed interest in the concept of melancholia (Mel). However, clinical or biological differentiation of Mel from other (nonMel) episodes of depression has been questioned, and it remains unclear whether pharmacological responses proposed to be characteristic of Mel are supported by available research.

METHODS

We carried out a systematic review seeking treatment trials reports comparing Mel and nonMel depressed subjects for meta-analyses of their differences in responses (a) to antidepressants overall, (b) to tricyclic (TCAs) or serotonin-enhancing agents (serotonin reuptake inhibitors/serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors) and (c) with placebo treatment.

RESULTS

We identified 25 trials in 16 reports comparing 2597 Mel with 5016 nonMel subjects. Overall, responses to antidepressant treatment did not differ between Mel (39.4%) and nonMel (42.2%) subjects. However, all subjects responded better to TCAs (50.6%) than SRIs (30.0%; p<0.0001). Mel subjects also responded less well with placebo, but also were significantly more severely depressed at intake.

CONCLUSIONS

Antidepressant responses were similar in Mel and nonMel depressed patients. Mel subjects responded 25% less with placebo but were more severely depressed initially, and there was preferential response to TCAs in both Mel and nonMel subjects. The findings provide little support for proposed differences in responses to particular treatments among Mel versus nonMel depressed patients, and underscore the need to match for illness severity in making such comparisons.

Comparative efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological treatments for the treatment of acute bipolar depression: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We investigated the comparative efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological treatment strategies for the treatment of acute bipolar depression.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic review and network meta-analysis was conducted by searching eight registries for published and unpublished, double-blind, randomized controlled trials of pharmacotherapies for the acute treatment of bipolar depression.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

PRISMA guidelines were used for abstracting data, while the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was used to assess data quality. Data extraction was done independently by two reviewers, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary outcomes were efficacy (response and remission rate) and acceptability (completion of treatment and dropouts due to adverse events). Summary odds ratios (ORs) were estimated using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects.

RESULTS

Identified citations (4,404) included 50 trials comprising 11,448 participants. Escitalopram, phenelzine, moclobemide, carbamazepine, sertraline, lithium, paroxetine, aripiprazole, gabapentin and ziprasidone appear to be ineffective as compared to placebo in treatment of bipolar depression. Divalproex, olanzapine/fluoxetine, olanzapine, quetiapine, cariprazine, and lamotrigine, appear to be effective as compared to placebo in treatment of bipolar depression according to the network meta-analysis. Aripiprazole showed higher discontinuation rates versus placebo due to the appearance of any adverse event. Quetiapine was better than placebo at reducing treatment-emergent affective switches. For Bipolar I Disorder, cariprazine, fluoxetine, imipramine, lamotrigine, lurasidone, olanzapine-fluoxetine, and olanzapine were significantly better than placebo at response, while fluoxetine, imipramine, cariprazine, lurasidone, olanzapine-fluoxetine, and olanzapine were significantly better than placebo at remission.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These results could serve evidence-based practice and inform patients, physicians, guideline developers, and policymakers on the relative benefits of the different antidepressants, antipsychotics, and mood-stabilizing agents for the treatment of bipolar depression.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42019122172).

Melancholic versus Nonmelancholic Major Depression Compared

BACKGROUND

The concept of melancholia has been associated with psychiatric nosology for centuries. Nevertheless, its definition, relationship to the contemporary concept of Major Depressive Disorder, and clinical implications remain uncertain.

METHODS

In a total sample of 3211 closely evaluated patient-subjects diagnosed with DSM-5 Major Depressive or Bipolar Disorder and meeting DSM-5 criteria for major depression with melancholic features or not at a European mood disorder center, we matched 1833 for depression severity (baseline HDRS₂₁ score ≥18) and compared rates and ratings of characteristics of interest between the subgroups, using bivariate and multivariate methods.

RESULTS

Observed prevalence of melancholic features was 35.2% in the 1833 subjects matched for severity, and 21.0% among all 3211 subjects. Diagnosis was highly dependent on depression-severity measured three ways. Very few clinical characteristics differed between melancholic and nonmelancholic subjects matched for illness-severity; more suicidal ideation with melancholic features was a notable exception.

CONCLUSIONS

Study findings leave the distinction of melancholic features from depression-severity unclear and the potential clinical value of diagnosing melancholic features uncertain.

Pharmacotherapeutic interventions for bipolar disorder type II: addressing multiple symptoms and approaches with a particular emphasis on strategies in lower and middle-income countries

Introduction: Appropriately managing mental disorders is a growing priority across countries in view of the impact on morbidity and mortality. This includes patients with bipolar disorders (BD). Management of BD is a concern as this is a complex disease with often misdiagnosis, which is a major issue in lower and middle-income countries (LMICs) with typically a limited number of trained personnel and resources. This needs to be addressed.Areas covered: Medicines are the cornerstone of managing patients with Bipolar II across countries including LMICs. The choice of medicines, especially antipsychotics, is important in LMICs with high rates of diabetes and HIV. However, care is currently compromised in LMICs by issues such as the stigma, cultural beliefs, a limited number of trained professionals and high patient co-payments.Expert opinion: Encouragingly, some LMICs have introduced guidelines for patients with BD; however, this is very variable. Strategies for the future include addressing the lack of national guidelines for patients with BD, improving resources for mental disorders including personnel, improving medicine availability and patients' rights, and monitoring prescribing against agreed guidelines. A number of strategies have been identified to improve the treatment of patients with Bipolar II in LMICs, and will be followed up.