Do early changes in the HAM-D-17 anxiety/somatization factor items affect the treatment outcome among depressed outpatients? Comparison of two controlled trials of St John's wort (Hypericum perforatum) versus a SSRI

The impact of early remission on disease trajectory and patient outcomes in major depression disorder (MDD): A targeted literature review and microsimulation modeling approach based on the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study

BACKGROUND

While literature has suggested that the duration of a major depressive episode (MDE) may affect both symptomatic and functional outcomes in major depressive disorder (MDD), study designs are limited in their ability to isolate a causal relationship.

METHODS

A targeted literature review was conducted using the MEDLINE database to assess whether there was an association between (1) shorter duration of an MDE, or (2) increased rapidity of symptom improvement, and MDD outcomes in adult patients. Given findings from the literature, we hypothesized that rapid symptom improvement could be associated with other longer-term clinical outcomes and used a previously-developed microsimulation model to test this hypothesis. The base case of the model replicated step-therapy treatment patterns, for 10,000 simulated patients, based on lines of therapy related to standard of care, observed remission rates, and observed time to relapse from the STAR*D study. In alternative scenario analyses, the step 1 remission rate was varied by +25 % and +50 % from the base case value to simulate the potential impact of improved earlier remission on disease trajectory and patient-level clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

The literature review (N = 35 studies) suggests a statistically significant relationship between the duration of MDE or early symptom improvement and MDD outcomes. The microsimulation model corroborated these findings and demonstrated that increasing the rate of remission in step 1 results in patients experiencing decreased number of treatment steps, faster time to remission, decreased rate of reaching treatment-resistant depression, and delayed time to relapse.

LIMITATIONS

Rates of relapse in STAR*D were deemed unreliable due to the high-loss of follow-up; rates of relapse for the MDD DTM were instead derived using parametric extrapolation methods (i.e., exponential, Weibull, log-logistic, Gaussian, log-normal, logistic). Adherence to treatment was assumed to be 100 %; however, non-adherence is expected to result in lower cumulative remission rates.

CONCLUSION

Findings from the literature, coupled with quantification through a novel microsimulation model, demonstrate the potential impact of increased remission on disease trajectory and patient outcomes in MDD. While additional analyses with the model may be warranted to explore the impact of novel interventions on population health, including long-term outcomes (i.e., 5-year follow-up, lifetime follow-up), efforts by clinicians to increase remission early in the disease trajectory may improve long-term outcomes.

Dimensions of anxiety in Major depressive disorder and their use in predicting antidepressant treatment outcome: an iSPOT-D report

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorder (MDD) commonly co-occurs with clinically significant levels of anxiety. However, anxiety symptoms are varied and have been inconsistently associated with clinical, functional, and antidepressant treatment outcomes. We aimed to identify and characterise dimensions of anxiety in people with MDD and their use in predicting antidepressant treatment outcome.

METHOD

1008 adults with a current diagnosis of single-episode or recurrent, nonpsychotic, MDD were assessed at baseline on clinical features and cognitive/physiological functioning. Participants were then randomised to one of three commonly prescribed antidepressants and reassessed at 8 weeks regarding symptom change, as well as remission and response, on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale Depression (HRSD17) and the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS-SR16). Exploratory factor analysis was used on items from scales assessing anxiety symptoms, and resulting factors were assessed against clinical features and cognitive/physiological functioning. Factors were also assessed on their ability to predict treatment outcome.

RESULTS

Three factors emerged relating to stress, cognitive anxiety, and somatic anxiety. All factors showed high internal consistency, minimal cross-loadings, and unique clinical and functional profiles. Furthermore, only higher somatic anxiety was associated with poorer QIDS-SR16 remission, even after adjusting for covariates and multiple comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

Anxiety symptoms in people with MDD can be separated onto distinct factors that differentially respond to treatment outcome. Furthermore, these factors do not align with subscales of established measures of anxiety. Future research should consider cognitive and somatic symptoms of anxiety separately when assessing anxiety in MDD and their use in predicting treatment outcome.

Predictors of the effectiveness of an early medication change strategy in patients with major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND

Patients with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) who are non-improvers after two weeks of antidepressant treatment have a high risk of treatment failure. Recently, we did not find differences in outcomes in non-improvers randomized to an early medication change (EMC) strategy compared to treatment as usual (TAU). This secondary analysis investigated possible predictors of higher remission rates in the EMC strategy.

METHODS

Of 192 non-improvers (i.e. decrease of ≤20% on the HAMD-17 depression scale) after a two-week treatment with escitalopram, n = 97 were randomized to EMC (immediate switch to high doses of venlafaxine XR) and n = 95 to TAU (continued escitalopram until day 28 with non-responders switched to venlafaxine XR). We first analyzed patient characteristics, psychopathological features and subtypes of MDD by logistic regression analyses as possible predictors of remission rates. In a second investigation, we analyzed the predictors, which showed a significant association in the first analysis before Bonferroni-Holm correction by chi-squared tests separated for treatment groups. All analyses were corrected by Bonferroni-Holm method.

RESULTS

The first analyses yielded no statistically significant results after correction for multiple testing. In the second analyses, however, patients with prior medication at study entry showed higher remission rates in EMC than in TAU (24.2% versus 8.6%, p = 0.017; Bonferroni-Holm corrected significance level: p = 0.025.). Furthermore, patients with a recurrent course of MDD benefited less from treatment as usual (p = 0.009; Bonferroni-Holm corrected significance level: p = 0.025). Age, sex, age of onset, psychiatric or somatic comorbidities, and other subtypes of MDD did not predict remission rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Although in our first analysis we found statistically non-significant results, the second analysis showed significant differences in remission rates between patients with or without previous medication and in patients with recurrent MDD or the first depressive episode. It would therefore be valuable to examine in larger and prospective studies whether remission rates can be increased by quick escalation of treatment in certain subgroups of patients. Promising subgroups to be tested are patients who were previously medicated, and who show a recurrent course of MDD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00974155 . Registered at the 10th of September 2009. Retrospectively registered.

A combined marker of early non-improvement and the occurrence of melancholic features improve the treatment prediction in patients with Major Depressive Disorders

BACKGROUND

Early Improvement of depressive symptoms within two weeks of antidepressant treatment is a highly sensitive but less specific predictor of later treatment outcome. The aim of this study was to identify clinical features at treatment initiation which are associated with early improvement and non-improvement as well as to identify variables predicting non-remission in patients showing an early improvement.

METHODS

889 patients with a major depressive episode according to DSM-IV who had participated in an antidepressant treatment trial served as study sample. Clinical predictors (demographic variables, psychopathology, comorbid disorders) were analysed in 698 (79%) early improver (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale reduction > 20% after 14 days of treatment) compared to 191 (21%) non-improver. Furthermore, clinical predictors for later remission and non-remission were analysed in the 698 patients showing an early improvement.

RESULTS

Patients with more severe depression and suicidality were more likely to become non-improver, and also non-remitter after 8 weeks of treatment in case of early improvement. Early improver with melancholic, anxious or atypical depression as well as with comorbid social phobia or avoidant personality disorder had an increased risk for non-remission at study end. The combined marker of early non-improvement and the occurrence of melancholic features increased the specificity of treatment prediction from 30% to 90%.

LIMITATIONS

Comorbid disorders were only assessed at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with early non-improvement and melancholic features at treatment initiation have a particularly high risk of later non-remission. This group of patients should be considered more attention in treatment decisions.

Fluoxetine versus other types of pharmacotherapy for depression

BACKGROUND

Depression is common in primary care and is associated with marked personal, social and economic morbidity, thus creating significant demands on service providers. The antidepressant fluoxetine has been studied in many randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in comparison with other conventional and unconventional antidepressants. However, these studies have produced conflicting findings.Other systematic reviews have considered selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRIs) as a group which limits the applicability of the indings for fluoxetine alone. Therefore, this review intends to provide specific and clinically useful information regarding the effects of fluoxetine for depression compared with tricyclics (TCAs), SSRIs, serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), monoamineoxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and newer agents, and other conventional and unconventional agents.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of fluoxetine in comparison with all other antidepressive agents for depression in adult individuals with unipolar major depressive disorder.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR)to 11May 2012. This register includes relevant RCTs from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (all years),MEDLINE (1950 to date), EMBASE (1974 to date) and PsycINFO (1967 to date). No language restriction was applied. Reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews were handsearched. The pharmaceutical company marketing fluoxetine and experts in this field were contacted for supplemental data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs comparing fluoxetine with any other AD (including non-conventional agents such as hypericum) for patients with unipolar major depressive disorder (regardless of the diagnostic criteria used) were included. For trials that had a cross-over design only results from the first randomisation period were considered.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted by two review authors using a standard form. Responders to treatment were calculated on an intention-to-treat basis: dropouts were always included in this analysis. When data on dropouts were carried forward and included in the efficacy evaluation, they were analysed according to the primary studies; when dropouts were excluded from any assessment in the primary studies, they were considered as treatment failures. Scores from continuous outcomes were analysed by including patients with a final assessment or with the last observation carried forward. Tolerability data were analysed by calculating the proportion of patients who failed to complete the study due to any causes and due to side effects or inefficacy. For dichotomous data, odds ratios (ORs) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the random-effects model. Continuous data were analysed using standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 171 studies were included in the analysis (24,868 participants). The included studies were undertaken between 1984 and 2012. Studies had homogenous characteristics in terms of design, intervention and outcome measures. The assessment of quality with the risk of bias tool revealed that the great majority of them failed to report methodological details, like the method of random sequence generation, the allocation concealment and blinding. Moreover, most of the included studies were sponsored by drug companies, so the potential for overestimation of treatment effect due to sponsorship bias should be considered in interpreting the results. Fluoxetine was as effective as the TCAs when considered as a group both on a dichotomous outcome (reduction of at least 50% on the Hamilton Depression Scale) (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.22, 24 RCTs, 2124 participants) and a continuous outcome (mean scores at the end of the trial or change score on depression measures) (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.14, 50 RCTs, 3393 participants). On a dichotomousoutcome, fluoxetine was less effective than dothiepin or dosulepin (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.08 to 4.20; number needed to treat (NNT) =6, 95% CI 3 to 50, 2 RCTs, 144 participants), sertraline (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.74; NNT = 13, 95% CI 7 to 58, 6 RCTs, 1188 participants), mirtazapine (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.04; NNT = 12, 95% CI 6 to 134, 4 RCTs, 600 participants) and venlafaxine(OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.51; NNT = 11, 95% CI 8 to 16, 12 RCTs, 3387 participants). On a continuous outcome, fluoxetine was more effective than ABT-200 (SMD -1.85, 95% CI -2.25 to -1.45, 1 RCT, 141 participants) and milnacipran (SMD -0.36, 95% CI-0.63 to -0.08, 2 RCTs, 213 participants); conversely, it was less effective than venlafaxine (SMD 0.10, 95% CI 0 to 0.19, 13 RCTs,3097 participants). Fluoxetine was better tolerated than TCAs considered as a group (total dropout OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.96;NNT = 20, 95% CI 13 to 48, 49 RCTs, 4194 participants) and was better tolerated in comparison with individual ADs, in particular amitriptyline (total dropout OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.85; NNT = 13, 95% CI 8 to 39, 18 RCTs, 1089 participants), and among the newer ADs ABT-200 (total dropout OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.39; NNT = 3, 95% CI 2 to 5, 1 RCT, 144 participants), pramipexole(total dropout OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.42, NNT = 3, 95% CI 2 to 5, 1 RCT, 105 participants), and reboxetine (total dropout OR0.60, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.82, NNT = 9, 95% CI 6 to 24, 4 RCTs, 764 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The present study detected differences in terms of efficacy and tolerability between fluoxetine and certain ADs, but the clinical meaning of these differences is uncertain.Moreover, the assessment of quality with the risk of bias tool showed that the great majority of included studies failed to report details on methodological procedures. Of consequence, no definitive implications can be drawn from the studies' results. The better efficacy profile of sertraline and venlafaxine (and possibly other ADs) over fluoxetine may be clinically meaningful,as already suggested by other systematic reviews. In addition to efficacy data, treatment decisions should also be based on considerations of drug toxicity, patient acceptability and cost.

Radioelectric brain stimulation in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder with comorbid major depression in a psychiatric hospital: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is often presented with major depression (MD). GAD-MD can be a chronic and disabling condition, and patients suffering from this disorder often respond poorly to psychopharmacological treatment and experience side effects with medication. Therefore, there is a high demand for effective nonpharmacological therapy for GAD-MD patients. The current study explores the use of a radioelectric asymmetric conveyer (REAC) device in the treatment of GAD-MD.

METHODS

Participants were 24 patients diagnosed with GAD-MD being treated at a public psychiatric center. All patients were dissatisfied with their current pharmacological treatment. Patients were evaluated using the 21-item Hamilton Depression (HAM-D) rating scale and the Symptom Check List-90-Revised (SCL-90R) before and after REAC brain stimulation treatment cycles.

RESULTS

After REAC brain stimulation treatment, all patients experienced a significant reduction in anxiety and depression. These results were confirmed by physician examination, HAM-D scores, and SCL-90R total scores.

CONCLUSION

These results indicate a role for REAC brain stimulation in the management of psychiatric conditions, specifically, GAD-MD comorbidity. REAC treatments are synergistic to drug therapy and appear to be helpful in reducing the side effects of medication. Future studies should evaluate the long-term effects of REAC treatment.