Step-wise loss of antidepressant effectiveness with repeated antidepressant trials in bipolar II depression

Disease progression to bipolar disorder among adolescents and young adults with antidepressant-resistant and antidepressant-responsive depression: Does antidepressant class matter?

Studies have demonstrated a positive relationship between antidepressant resistance and the progression of bipolar disorder. However, the influence of antidepressant classes such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) in this context has yet to be investigated. A total of 5,285 adolescents and young adults with antidepressant-resistant depression and 21,140 with antidepressant-responsive depression were recruited in the present study. The antidepressant-resistant depression group was divided into two subgroups: only resistant to SSRIs (n = 2,242, 42.4%) and additionally resistant to non-SSRIs (n = 3,043, 57.6%) groups. The status of bipolar disorder progression was monitored from the date of depression diagnosis to the end of 2011. Patients with antidepressant-resistant depression were more likely to develop bipolar disorder during the follow-up (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.88, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.67-3.09) than those with antidepressant-responsive depression. Furthermore, the group that was additionally resistant to non-SSRIs were at the highest risk of bipolar disorder (HR: 3.02, 95% CI: 2.76-3.29), followed by the group that was only resistant to SSRIs (2.70, 2.44-2.98). Adolescents and young adults with antidepressant-resistant depression, especially those who responded poorly to both SSRIs and SNRIs, were at increased risk of subsequent bipolar disorder compared with those with antidepressant-responsive depression. Further studies are warranted to elucidate the molecular pathomechanisms underlying the resistance to SSRIs and SNRIs and subsequent bipolar disorder.

What are the treatment remission, response and extent of improvement rates after up to four trials of antidepressant therapies in real-world depressed patients? A reanalysis of the STAR*D study's patient-level data with fidelity to the original research protocol

OBJECTIVE

Reanalyse the patient-level data set of the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study with fidelity to the original research protocol and related publications.

DESIGN

The study was open label and semirandomised examining the effectiveness of up to four optimised and increasingly aggressive, antidepressant therapies in depressed adults. Patients who failed to gain adequate relief from their level 1 trial on the SSRI citalopram could receive up to three additional treatment trials in levels 2-4.

SETTING

41 North American psychiatry and primary care treatment centres.

PARTICIPANTS

4041 adults screened positive for major depressive disorder. In contrast to most clinical trials, STAR*D enrolled patients seeking care (vs recruited) and included patients with a wide range of common comorbid medical and psychiatric conditions to enhance the generalisability of findings to real-world clinical practice.

INTERVENTIONS

STAR*D evaluated the relative effectiveness of 13 antidepressants therapies in treatment levels 2-4 for depressed patients who failed to gain adequate benefit from their level 1 medication trial.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

According to the STAR*D protocol, the primary outcome was remission, defined as a score <8 on the blinded Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD). Response was a secondary outcome defined as ≥50% reduction in HRSD scores. STAR*D's protocol specifically excluded all non-blinded clinic-administered assessments from use as research outcome measures.

RESULTS

STAR*D investigators did not use the protocol-stipulated HRSD to report cumulative remission and response rates in their summary article and instead used a non-blinded clinic-administered assessment. This inflated their report of outcomes, as did their inclusion of 99 patients who scored as remitted on the HRSD at study outset as well as 125 who scored as remitted when initiating their next-level treatment. These patients should have been excluded from data analysis. In contrast to the STAR*D-reported 67% cumulative remission rate after up to four antidepressant treatment trials, the rate was 35.0% when using the protocol-stipulated HRSD and inclusion in data analysis criteria.

CONCLUSION

STAR*D's cumulative remission rate was approximately half of that reported.

Pharmacotherapy exposure as a marker of disease complexity in bipolar disorder: Associations with clinical & genetic risk factors

Individuals with bipolar disorder (BD) require chronic pharmacotherapy, typically including medication switches or polypharmacy due to persisting symptoms or intolerable side effects. Here, we quantified pharmacotherapy exposure (PE) of Mayo Clinic BD Biobank participants using the number of cross-sectional (at enrollment) and lifetime BD-specific medications and medication classes, to understand the relationship between PE and markers of disease severity or treatment failure, psychiatric comorbidities, and polygenic risk scores (PRS) for six major psychiatric disorders. Being female (p < 0.05), older (p < 0.01), having history of suicide attempts (p < 0.0001), and comorbid attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (p < 0.05) or generalized anxiety disorder (p < 0.05) were uniformly associated with higher PE. Lifetime exposure to unique medication classes among participants with BD-I was significantly lower than for those with schizoaffective disorder (estimate = -2.1, p < 0.0001) while significantly higher than for those with BD-II (estimate = 0.5, p < 0.01). Further, higher PRS for schizophrenia (SCZ) and anxiety resulted in greater lifetime medication counts (p < 0.01), both driven by antipsychotic (p < 0.001) and anxiolytic use (p < 0.05). Our results provide initial evidence of the utility of PE as a measure of disease complexity or treatment resistance, and that PE may be predicted by higher genetic risk for SCZ and anxiety.

Effectiveness and safety of monoamine oxidase inhibitor treatment for bipolar depression versus unipolar depression: An exploratory case cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Patients with bipolar disorder spend most of their clinical lifetime in the depressive phase of their illness. However, antidepressants are discouraged in the treatment of bipolar depression due to concerns over manic induction and drug ineffectiveness. Some reports suggest that monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) may be safe and effective compared to other antidepressants in treating bipolar depression. The present study compared the safety and effectiveness of MAOI therapy in patients with bipolar versus unipolar depression.

METHODS

Data were collected from approximately 2500 clinical research charts of patients treated with MAOI therapy at a university mood disorder clinic between 1983 and 2015. A mixed-effects model was created with patient entered as the random effect. The model included the primary diagnosis (i.e., either unipolar or bipolar depression) and other clinical covariates as fixed-effect predictors.

RESULTS

Patients with bipolar depression demonstrated lower post-treatment clinical global impressions/severity scores versus patients with unipolar depression (p = 0.04). Neither group demonstrated a full syndromal manic or hypomanic episode. A higher proportion of patients with bipolar depression reported myoclonic tics and tremors, which may have resulted from concomitant lithium use. Amongst the covariates, only the number of prior antidepressant trials predicted poorer outcomes from MAOI therapy.

CONCLUSION

MAOIs may be more effective-and as safe-for patients with bipolar depression versus unipolar depression. Future studies should explore this possible advantage using a larger sample size.

Lithium treatment of Bipolar disorder in adults: A systematic review of randomized trials and meta-analyses

The aim of the study was to systematically review the hard evidence alone, concerning lithium efficacy separately for the phases and clinical facets of Bipolar disorder (BD). The PRISMA method was followed to search the MEDLINE for Randomized Controlled trials, Post-hoc analyses and Meta-analyses and review papers up to August 1st 2020, with the combination of the words 'bipolar', 'manic', 'mania', 'manic depression' and 'manic depressive' and 'randomized'. Trials and meta-analyses concerning the use of lithium either as monotherapy or in combination with other agents in adults were identified concerning acute mania (Ν=64), acute bipolar depression (Ν=78), the maintenance treatment (Ν=73) and the treatment of other issues (N = 93). Treatment guidelines were also identified. Lithium is efficacious for the treatment of acute mania including concomitant psychotic symptoms. In acute bipolar depression it is efficacious only in combination with specific agents. For the maintenance phase, it is efficacious as monotherapy mainly in the prevention of manic while its efficacy for the prevention of depressive episodes is unclear. Its combinations increase its therapeutic value. It is equaly efficacious in rapid and non-rapid cycling patients, in concomitant obsessive-compulsive symptoms, alcohol and substance abuse, the neurocognitive deficit, suicidal ideation and fatigue The current systematic review provided support for the usefulness of lithium against a broad spectrum of clinical issues in Bipolar disorder. Its efficacy is comparable to that of more recently developed agents.

More treatment but no less depression: The treatment-prevalence paradox

Treatments for depression have improved, and their availability has markedly increased since the 1980s. Mysteriously the general population prevalence of depression has not decreased. This "treatment-prevalence paradox" (TPP) raises fundamental questions about the diagnosis and treatment of depression. We propose and evaluate seven explanations for the TPP. First, two explanations assume that improved and more widely available treatments have reduced prevalence, but that the reduction has been offset by an increase in: 1) misdiagnosing distress as depression, yielding more "false positive" diagnoses; or 2) an actual increase in depression incidence. Second, the remaining five explanations assume prevalence has not decreased, but suggest that: 3) treatments are less efficacious and 4) less enduring than the literature suggests; 5) trial efficacy doesn't generalize to real-world settings; 6) population-level treatment impact differs for chronic-recurrent versus non-recurrent cases; and 7) treatments have some iatrogenic consequences. Any of these seven explanations could undermine treatment impact on prevalence, thereby helping to explain the TPP. Our analysis reveals that there is little evidence that incidence or prevalence have increased as a result of error or fact (Explanations 1 and 2), and strong evidence that (a) the published literature overestimates short- and long-term treatment efficacy, (b) treatments are considerably less effective as deployed in "real world" settings, and (c) treatment impact differs substantially for chronic-recurrent cases relative to non-recurrent cases. Collectively, these a-c explanations likely account for most of the TPP. Lastly, little research exists on iatrogenic effects of current treatments (Explanation 7), but further exploration is critical.

A Naturalistic Study of Outcomes for Durable Remission in Patients With Bipolar Disorder

OBJECTIVE

Bipolar disorder is a severe mental illness affecting emotional stability, physical health, and quality of life. In a previous study, we identified medications associated with remission in patients with bipolar disorder. The objective of the current study was to determine the status of the patients after 3 additional years, as well as the medications associated with remission.

METHODS

Data were extracted from clinical records. The criteria for remission in both the original study and the follow-up were 12 continuous months of euthymia, mild symptoms, and no clinical relapse. Active illness was defined as <12 months of remission. Statistical comparisons were made between the remitted and active illness groups on demographics and medication regimens.

RESULTS

The original study contained 121 patients, 52 of whom were available for follow-up. Of the 121 patients from the original study, 53 (43.8%) were remitted for at least 12 months. Follow-up data were available for 19 of those patients, 15 of whom continued in remission while 4 relapsed. Of the 68 patients who were still ill at the end of the first study, follow-up data were available for 33 patients, 18 of whom had achieved remission at the time of follow-up while 15 continued to be ill. Remitted patients were more likely to be receiving a mood stabilizer (P=0.022) or a combination of a mood stabilizer and an antidepressant (P=0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of our results, mood stabilizers and antidepressants were associated with remission in long-term follow-up. Remission may ultimately be possible for many patients who did not succeed initially.

The CINP Guidelines on the Definition and Evidence-Based Interventions for Treatment-Resistant Bipolar Disorder

BACKGROUND

Resistant bipolar disorder is a major mental health problem related to significant disability and overall cost. The aim of the current study was to perform a systematic review of the literature concerning (1) the definition of treatment resistance in bipolar disorder, (2) its clinical and (3) neurobiological correlates, and (4) the evidence-based treatment options for treatment-resistant bipolar disorder and for eventually developing guidelines for the treatment of this condition.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The PRISMA method was used to identify all published papers relevant to the definition of treatment resistance in bipolar disorder and the associated evidence-based treatment options. The MEDLINE was searched to April 22, 2018.

RESULTS

Criteria were developed for the identification of resistance in bipolar disorder concerning all phases. The search of the literature identified all published studies concerning treatment options. The data were classified according to strength, and separate guidelines regarding resistant acute mania, acute bipolar depression, and the maintenance phase were developed.

DISCUSSION

The definition of resistance in bipolar disorder is by itself difficult due to the complexity of the clinical picture, course, and treatment options. The current guidelines are the first, to our knowledge, developed specifically for the treatment of resistant bipolar disorder patients, and they also include an operationalized definition of treatment resistance. They were based on a thorough and deep search of the literature and utilize as much as possible an evidence-based approach.

Prior Antidepressant Treatment Trials May Predict a Greater Risk of Depressive Relapse During Antidepressant Maintenance Therapy

BACKGROUND

We examined the influence of prior antidepressant treatment trials on the likelihood of depressive relapse, and time to depressive relapse, during maintenance therapy of bipolar II disorder in treatment-responsive subjects who had recovered from a major depressive episode.

METHODS

Data were derived from a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial of 148 adult subjects with bipolar II major depressive episode who were initially administered open-label fluoxetine monotherapy for 12 weeks. Remitters with a final Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score of 8 or lower were then randomized to continuation therapy with either fluoxetine (n = 28), lithium (n = 26), or placebo (n = 27) for 50 additional weeks.

RESULTS

An increase in the number of prior antidepressant treatment trials was significantly associated with a greater likelihood of depressive relapse for all treatment conditions taken together [odds ratio (OR) = 1.42, z = 2.49, P = 0.01] and for the 2 active treatment conditions together (OR = 1.51, z = 2.28, P = 0.02). An increase in the number of prior antidepressant trials was also associated with a trend-level shortening in the time to relapse for all treatment conditions taken together (hazard ratio = 1.15; confidence interval, 0.99-1.35; P = 0.07) and a significantly shorter time to relapse for subjects in the 2 active treatment conditions (hazard ratio = 1.30; confidence interval, 1.05-1.62; P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings support prior evidence of a negative influence of the number of prior antidepressant treatment trials on the likelihood of response and suggest that the number of prior antidepressant trials may also be associated with a greater odds of depressive relapse, and a shorter time to relapse, during antidepressant maintenance therapy in recovered depressed subjects with bipolar II disorder.

Results of the European Group for the Study of Resistant Depression (GSRD) - basis for further research and clinical practice

Objectives: The overview outlines two decades of research from the European Group for the Study of Resistant Depression (GSRD) that fundamentally impacted evidence-based algorithms for diagnostics and psychopharmacotherapy of treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Methods: The GSRD staging model characterising response, non-response and resistance to antidepressant (AD) treatment was applied to 2762 patients in eight European countries. Results: In case of non-response, dose escalation and switching between different AD classes did not show superiority over continuation of original AD treatment. Predictors for TRD were symptom severity, duration of the current major depressive episode (MDE), suicidality, psychotic and melancholic features, comorbid anxiety and personality disorders, add-on treatment, non-response to the first AD, adverse effects, high occupational level, recurrent disease course, previous hospitalisations, positive family history of MDD, early age of onset and novel associations of single nucleoid polymorphisms (SNPs) within the PPP3CC, ST8SIA2, CHL1, GAP43 and ITGB3 genes and gene pathways associated with neuroplasticity, intracellular signalling and chromatin silencing. A prediction model reaching accuracy of above 0.7 highlighted symptom severity, suicidality, comorbid anxiety and lifetime MDEs as the most informative predictors for TRD. Applying machine-learning algorithms, a signature of three SNPs of the BDNF, PPP3CC and HTR2A genes and lacking melancholia predicted treatment response. Conclusions: The GSRD findings offer a unique and balanced perspective on TRD representing foundation for further research elaborating on specific clinical and genetic hypotheses and treatment strategies within appropriate study-designs, especially interaction-based models and randomized controlled trials.