Treatment strategy in depression. I. Non-tricyclic and selective reuptake inhibitors in resistant depression: a double-blind partial crossover study on the effects of oxaprotiline and fluvoxamine

Ketamine and the Future of Rapid-Acting Antidepressants

The therapeutic onset of traditional antidepressants is delayed by several weeks and many depressed patients fail to respond to treatment altogether. In contrast, subanesthetic ketamine can rapidly alleviate symptoms of depression within hours of a single administration, even in patients who are considered treatment-resistant. Ketamine is thought to exert these effects by restoring the integrity of neural circuits that are compromised in depression. This hypothesis stems in part from preclinical observations that ketamine can strengthen synaptic connections by increasing glutamate-mediated neurotransmission and promoting rapid neurotrophic factor release. An improved understanding of how ketamine, and other novel rapid-acting antidepressants, give rise to these processes will help foster future therapeutic innovation. Here, we review the history of antidepressant treatment advances that preceded the ketamine discovery, critically examine mechanistic hypotheses for how ketamine may exert its antidepressant effects, and discuss the impact this knowledge has had on ongoing drug discovery efforts.

Relative effectiveness of tricyclic antidepressant versus monoamine oxidase inhibitor monotherapy for treatment-resistant depression

OBJECTIVES

Antidepressants may be less effective in treatment-resistant depression (TRD). In this exploratory study, we examined the widely held hypothesis that monoamine oxidase inhibitor (MAOI) therapy may be superior to tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) therapy for TRD. We also examined the influence of the number of prior treatment trials on TCA versus MAOI effectiveness in TRD.

METHODS

Data were retrospectively extracted from approximately 2,500 treatment charts of patients with TRD who were attending a university mood disorder clinic between 1983 and 2015. Hierarchical linear modeling was used to examine the efficacy of drug class on outcome as well as the interaction between drug class and the number of prior antidepressant trials.

RESULTS

147 treatment outcome observations were made from 94 unipolar, depressed patients who either received TCA (N = 47) or MAOI (N = 100) monotherapy for TRD. For patients unresponsive to at least one prior trial, drug class significantly predicted end-of-treatment CGI/S scores, with TCAs showing worse (i.e., higher) end-of-treatment CGI/S scores relative to MAOI therapy (b = 1.04, t = 4.98, p < 0.0001). When examining the interaction between drug class and the number of prior antidepressant trials, the interaction effect was significant (b = -0.50, t = -2.43, p = 0.02); however, the advantage for MAOI versus TCA therapy decreases with more prior, failed, antidepressant trials.

CONCLUSION

Results suggest that MAOIs may be more effective than TCAs for early stage TRD. This difference in effectiveness between MAOIs and TCAs diminished as the number of prior treatment trials increased. However, the TCA sample size was limited and the analysis was retrospective with non-randomized conditions.

Comparison of vortioxetine versus venlafaxine XR in adults in Asia with major depressive disorder: a randomized, double-blind study

OBJECTIVE

This randomized, double-blind 8 week study compared the efficacy and tolerability of fixed-dose treatment with vortioxetine (10 mg/day) and venlafaxine extended release (XR) (150 mg/day) in major depressive disorder (MDD) patients.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients aged 18-65 years with a primary diagnosis of recurrent MDD, a Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score ≥26 and a Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) score ≥4 were randomized (1:1) to treatment with either vortioxetine or venlafaxine XR. The primary endpoint was change from baseline to Week 8 in MADRS total score (analysis of covariance [ANCOVA], full-analysis set [FAS], last observation carried forward [LOCF]), using a non-inferiority margin of +2.5 points. Pre-specified secondary endpoints included MADRS response and remission rates, anxiety symptoms (HAM-A), CGI, overall functioning (SDS), and health-related quality of life (Q-LES-Q).

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study (SOLUTION) has the www.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01571453.

RESULTS

On the primary efficacy endpoint at Week 8, non-inferiority was established with a difference of -1.2 MADRS points in favor of vortioxetine (95% CI: -3.0 to 0.6). The MADRS total score decreased (improved) from 32.3 ± 4.6 at baseline to 13.6 ± 9.6 (vortioxetine: n = 209) and from 32.3 ± 4.5 to 14.8 ± 10.4 (venlafaxine XR: n = 215) (FAS, LOCF). At Week 8, the HAM-A and SDS total scores, CGI and Q-LES-Q scores, and response and remission rates demonstrated similar improvement for vortioxetine and venlafaxine XR, with remission rates (MADRS ≤10) of 43.1% (vortioxetine) versus 41.4% (venlafaxine XR) (LOCF). Fewer vortioxetine than venlafaxine XR patients withdrew for any reason (18.0% versus 27.4%) or for adverse events (6.6% versus 13.7%). The most frequent adverse events (≥5%) for both treatments were nausea, dizziness, headache, and dry mouth. In addition, accidental overdose, decreased appetite, constipation and insomnia were reported by (≥5%) of patients treated with venlafaxine XR.

LIMITATIONS

The inclusion and exclusion criteria may limit the generalizability of the study. Since patients with a history of lack of response to venlafaxine XR were excluded from this study, there is a selection bias in favor of venlafaxine XR.

CONCLUSION

Vortioxetine was at least as efficacious as venlafaxine XR and was safe and better tolerated than venlafaxine XR.

A randomised, double-blind study in adults with major depressive disorder with an inadequate response to a single course of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor or serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor treatment switched to vortioxetine or agomelatine

OBJECTIVE

This randomised, double-blind, 12-week study compared efficacy and tolerability of flexible-dose treatment with vortioxetine(10-20 mg/day) versus agomelatine (25-50 mg/day) in major depressive disorder patients with inadequate response to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI)/serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) monotherapy.

METHODS

Patients were switched directly from SSRI/SNRI to vortioxetine or agomelatine. Primary endpoint was change from baseline to week 8 in the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score analysed by mixed model for repeated measurements, using a noninferiority test followed by a superiority test. Secondary endpoints included response and remission rates, anxiety symptoms(Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale), Clinical Global Impression, overall functioning (Sheehan Disability Scale), health-related quality of life(EuroQol 5 Dimensions), productivity (work limitation questionnaire) and family functioning (Depression and Family Functioning Scale).

RESULTS

Primary endpoint noninferiority was established and vortioxetine (n = 252) was superior to agomelatine (n = 241) by 2.2 MADRS points (p<0.01). Vortioxetine was also significantly superior in response and remission rates at weeks 8 and 12; MADRS, Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, Clinical Global Impression, Sheehan Disability Scale and EuroQol 5 Dimensions scores at week 4 onwards; work limitation questionnaire at week 8 and Depression and Family Functioning Scale at weeks 8 and 12. Fewer patients withdrew because of adverse events with vortioxetine (5.9% vs 9.5%). Adverse events (incidence ≥5%) were nausea, headache, dizziness and somnolence.

CONCLUSIONS

Vortioxetine was noninferior and significantly superior to agomelatine in major depressive disorder patients with previous inadequate response to a single course of SSRI/SNRI monotherapy. Vortioxetine was safe and well tolerated.

Comparative study of efficacy of l-5-hydroxytryptophan and fluoxetine in patients presenting with first depressive episode

INTRODUCTION

Role of l-5-hydroxytryptophan (l-5-HTP) in depression is relatively less studied but the literature has shown its robust role in depression. The present randomized double blind study was undertaken to assess the role of l-5-HTP as an antidepressant and to compare its antidepressant efficacy with fluoxetine in first depressive episode patients of Indian population.

METHODS

A total of 70 patients of first depressive episode, all of whom were diagnosed with ICD-10 criteria, were recruited but only 60 patients completed the study and were randomly divided into two groups, receiving l-5-HTP and fluoxetine, respectively, for a period of 8weeks. All patients were administered Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) to assess severity of depression at baseline, 2weeks, 4weeks and 8weeks. The efficacy of treatment was assessed by comparing HAM-D scores obtained at these examinations with the baseline examination; final evaluation of both efficacy and tolerance was assessed using the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale at the end of study.

RESULTS

Both treatment groups showed significant and nearly equal reduction in HAM-D scores beginning at week two and continuing through week eight. Twenty-two patients (73.33%) in the l-5-HTP group and 24 patients (80%) in the fluoxetine group showed positive response at the end of the study.

CONCLUSION

l-5-HTP has definitely got antidepressant effect in patients of depression. Antidepressant effect was seen within 2weeks of treatment and was apparent in all degrees of depression. The therapeutic efficacy of l-5-HTP was considered as equal to that of fluoxetine.

Fluvoxamine versus other anti-depressive agents for depression

BACKGROUND

Fluvoxamine, one of the oldest selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), is prescribed to patients with major depression in many countries. Several studies have previously reviewed the efficacy and tolerability of fluvoxamine for the treatment of major depression. However, these reviews are now outdated.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective is to evaluate the effectiveness, tolerability and side effect profile of fluvoxamine for major depression in comparison with other anti-depressive agents, including tricyclics (TCAs), heterocyclics, other SSRIs, SNRIs, other newer agents and other conventional psychotropic drugs.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register. Trial databases and ongoing trial registers in North America, Europe, Japan and Australia, were handsearched for randomised controlled trials. We checked reference lists of the articles included in the review, previous systematic reviews and major textbooks of affective disorder for published reports and citations of unpublished research. The date of last search was 31 August 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials, published in any language, that compared fluvoxamine with any other active antidepressants in the acute phase treatment of major depression.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent review authors inspected citations and abstracts, obtained papers, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We analysed dichotomous data using odds ratios (ORs) and continuous data using the standardised mean difference (SMD). A random effects model was used to combine studies.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 54 randomised controlled trials (n = 5122) were included. No strong evidence was found to indicate that fluvoxamine was either superior or inferior to other antidepressants regarding response, remission and tolerability. However, differing side effect profiles were evident, especially with regard to gastrointestinal side effects of fluvoxamine when compared to other antidepressants. For example, fluvoxamine was generally associated with a higher incidence of vomiting/nausea (versus imipramine, OR 2.23, CI 1.59 to 3.14; versus clomipramine, OR 2.13, CI 1.06 to 4.27; versus amitriptyline, OR 2.86, CI 1.31 to 2.63).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no strong evidence that fluvoxamine was either superior or inferior to any other antidepressants in terms of efficacy and tolerability in the acute phase treatment of depression. However, differing side effect profiles were evident. Based on these findings, we conclude that clinicians should focus on practical or clinically relevant considerations, including these differences in side effect profiles.

Therapeutic options for treatment-resistant depression

Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) presents major challenges for both patients and clinicians. There is no universally accepted definition of TRD, but results from the US National Institute of Mental Health's (NIMH) STAR*D (Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression) programme indicate that after the failure of two treatment trials, the chances of remission decrease significantly. Several pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments for TRD may be considered when optimized (adequate dose and duration) therapy has not produced a successful outcome and a patient is classified as resistant to treatment. Nonpharmacological strategies include psychotherapy (often in conjunction with pharmacotherapy), electroconvulsive therapy and vagus nerve stimulation. The US FDA recently approved vagus nerve stimulation as adjunctive therapy (after four prior treatment failures); however, its benefits are seen only after prolonged (up to 1 year) use. Other nonpharmacological options, such as repetitive transcranial stimulation, deep brain stimulation or psychosurgery, remain experimental and are not widely available. Pharmacological treatments of TRD can be grouped in two main categories: 'switching' or 'combining'. In the first, treatment is switched within and between classes of compounds. The benefits of switching include avoidance of polypharmacy, a narrower range of treatment-emergent adverse events and lower costs. An inherent disadvantage of any switching strategy is that partial treatment responses resulting from the initial treatment might be lost by its discontinuation in favour of another medication trial. Monotherapy switches have also been shown to have limited effectiveness in achieving remission. The advantage of combination strategies is the potential to build upon achieved improvements; they are generally recommended if partial response was achieved with the current treatment trial. Various non-antidepressant augmenting agents, such as lithium and thyroid hormones, are well studied, although not commonly used. There is also evidence of efficacy and increasing use of atypical antipsychotics in combination with antidepressants, for example, olanzapine in combination with fluoxetine (OFC) or augmentation with aripiprazole. The disadvantages of a combination strategy include multiple medications, a broader range of treatment-emergent adverse events and higher costs. Several experimental pharmaceutical treatment alternatives for TRD are also being explored in combination with antidepressants or as monotherapy. These less studied alternative compounds include pindolol, inositol, CNS stimulants, hormones, herbal supplements, omega-3 fatty acids, S-adenosyl-L-methionine, folic acid, lamotrigine, modafinil, riluzole and topiramate. In summary, despite an increasing variety of choices for the treatment of TRD, this condition remains universally undefined and represents an area of unmet medical need. There are few known approved pharmacological agents for TRD (aripiprazole and OFC) and overall outcomes remain poor. This might be an indication that depression itself is a heterogeneous condition with a great diversity of pathologies, highlighting the need for careful evaluation of individuals with depressive symptoms who are unresponsive to treatment. Clearly, more research is needed to provide clinicians with better guidance in making those treatment decisions--especially in light of accumulating evidence that the longer patients are unsuccessfully treated, the worse their long-term prognosis tends to be.

Refractory depression in late life: a review of treatment options

There seems reasonable, if depressing, agreement from studies of mixed aged subjects and elderly subjects in psychiatric settings that nonresponse or poor response to a course of an antidepressant occurs in at least one-third of depressed patients. The figure may be higher in elderly patients in general and those with poor physical health. The human cost of chronic depression is highlighted in the Medical Outcomes Study. The level of functional impairment and intereference with quality of life associated with depression was comparable with or worse than that of eight major chronic medical conditions, including diabetes, arthritis and severe coronary artery disease. The final tragedy for unremitting depression may of course be suicide.

Venlafaxine extended release versus citalopram in patients with depression unresponsive to a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor

Findings from the National Institute of Mental Health's Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression trial indicate that approximately 50% of patients with major depressive disorder do not experience a treatment response after adequate first-line treatment with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI). This study was designed to test the hypothesis that, after treatment failure with an SSRI, switching to venlafaxine extended release (ER) would offer advantages over switching to another SSRI, citalopram. The objectives of this trial were to compare the efficacy and safety of venlafaxine ER and citalopram in the treatment of moderate-to-severe depression in patients who did not experience a treatment response to an SSRI other than citalopram and to investigate the effects of severity of depression by categorizing treatment groups according to baseline severity. This was a 12-week, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, multicenter study. Participants were adult outpatients who, following 8 weeks of monotherapy with an adequate dosing regimen of an SSRI other than citalopram and had not responded, met the diagnostic criteria for depression as described in the Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, fourth edition, and had a score > or =20 on the 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D21). After a 7-day screening period, patients were randomly assigned to receive venlafaxine ER 75 mg/day or citalopram 20 mg/day for the first 2 weeks. Doses could be increased every 2 weeks through week 6. Treatment lasted 12 weeks and was followed by a 1-week tapering period. Maximum dosages were venlafaxine ER 300 mg/day or citalopram 60 mg/day. The primary end point was the final on-therapy total HAM-D21 score. To investigate the treatment effects of the severity of depression on efficacy, a subgroup analysis was performed for baseline HAM-D21 total score < or =31 and >31. The analyses for HAM-D21, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Clinical Global Impressions - Severity (CGI-S), and Clinical Global Impressions - Improvement scores were based on intent-to-treat (ITT) population, for both the primary analysis and subgroup analysis according to baseline HAM-D21 total scores < or =31 or >31. Safety assessments included the recording of adverse events (AEs). A total of 406 patients (200 venlafaxine ER, 206 citalopram) were randomly assigned and 396 patients were included in the ITT population (194 venlafaxine ER, 202 citalopram). Treatment groups were similar in terms of demographics and baseline psychiatric assessments. Two hundred and eighty-four patients (137 venlafaxine ER, 147 citalopram) were present in the ITT population with a baseline HAM-D21 total score < or =31 and 112 patients (57 venlafaxine ER, 55 citalopram) in the >31 group. In the primary analysis, there was no statistical difference between groups. The group with a baseline HAM-D21 total score of 20-31 did not differ significantly in any efficacy parameters. In the group with a baseline HAM-D21 total score >31, the venlafaxine ER group differed significantly from the citalopram group on the primary end point HAM-D21 total score (P=0.0121). The secondary end point CGI-S score was statistically significant (P=0.0359), although the MADRS total score (P=0.0930) was not. AEs were reported by 57.8 and 63.4% of venlafaxine ER and citalopram patients, respectively. Overall discontinuation rates were 24.5% for venlafaxine ER and 20.9% for citalopram. Discontinuation rates owing to an AE as a primary or secondary reason were 5.5% for venlafaxine ER and 5.3% for citalopram. Overall, venlafaxine ER and citalopram showed similar efficacy in patients who had an inadequate response to an SSRI. In the subset of more severely depressed patients, venlafaxine ER was significantly more effective on a number of efficacy measures. Patients who remain severely depressed following treatment with an SSRI may gain more benefit from the dual-action drug venlafaxine, rather than switching to another SSRI.

Long-term treatment of depression with antidepressants: a systematic narrative review

OBJECTIVE

To examine the available scientific evidence for answers to clinically relevant questions on the effectiveness and tolerability of antidepressant drugs (ADs) for the long-term treatment of depression.

METHOD

The Cochrane Library was searched up to July 2006. When no complete Cochrane review was available, we looked in PubMed for relevant systematic reviews or individual randomized controlled trials.

RESULTS

There was no good evidence that increasing the dosage of the initial AD is an effective strategy for patients with no, or partial, response to acute-phase treatment. There was no good evidence that switching between chemical classes of antidepressant was more effective than switching within a class. There was limited support from randomized trials for several augmentation strategies. There was good evidence for the effectiveness of long-term therapy to prevent relapse in patients who remitted after acute-phase treatment. The application of principles of evidence-based medicine suggested that thoughtful, individualized application of evidence is more appropriate than general statements.

CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence provides some support for the effectiveness of several augmentation strategies in the management of patients with no, or partial, response to acute-phase treatment and for the individualized application of groupwise robust evidence for maintenance treatment with ADs to prevent relapses. However, side effects of these long-term treatments with ADs are poorly studied and reported.

Bupropion-SR, sertraline, or venlafaxine-XR after failure of SSRIs for depression

BACKGROUND

After unsuccessful treatment for depression with a selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), it is not known whether switching to one antidepressant is more effective than switching to another.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 727 adult outpatients with a nonpsychotic major depressive disorder who had no remission of symptoms or could not tolerate the SSRI citalopram to receive one of the following drugs for up to 14 weeks: sustained-release bupropion (239 patients) at a maximal daily dose of 400 mg, sertraline (238 patients) at a maximal daily dose of 200 mg, or extended-release venlafaxine (250 patients) at a maximal daily dose of 375 mg. The study was conducted in 18 primary and 23 psychiatric care settings. The primary outcome was symptom remission, defined by a total score of 7 or less on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD-17) at the end of the study. Scores on the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology - Self Report (QIDS-SR-16), obtained at treatment visits, determined secondary outcomes, including remission (a score of 5 or less at exit) and response (a reduction of 50 percent or more on baseline scores).

RESULTS

Remission rates as assessed by the HRSD-17 and the QIDS-SR-16, respectively, were 21.3 percent and 25.5 percent for sustained-release bupropion, 17.6 percent and 26.6 percent for sertraline, and 24.8 percent and 25.0 percent for extended-release venlafaxine. QIDS-SR-16 response rates were 26.1 percent for sustained-release bupropion, 26.7 percent for sertraline, and 28.2 percent for extended-release venlafaxine. These treatments did not differ significantly with respect to outcomes, tolerability, or adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

After unsuccessful treatment with an SSRI, approximately one in four patients had a remission of symptoms after switching to another antidepressant. Any one of the medications in the study provided a reasonable second-step choice for patients with depression. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00021528.).

MAOI efficacy and safety in advanced stage treatment-resistant depression--a retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

Evidence-based data suggest that MAOI therapy may be effective in up to 50% of patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). We hypothesized that MAOI therapy is similarly effective in patients with advanced stage TRD who are unresponsive to > or = 4 prior antidepressant drug (AD) trials compared to patients with early stage TRD who are unresponsive to < or = 3 prior AD trials.

METHODS

To test this hypothesis, data were harvested from 400 patient charts. Of these, 59 patients received a total of 75 MAOI treatment trials. 50 patients had 1 MAOI trial and 9 patients had 2 or more MAOI trials. Response was assessed using the Clinical Global Impressions Change (CGI/C) scale.

RESULTS

56% of MAOI trials resulted in a CGI/C score of 1 ("very much better") or 2 ("much better"). Only 25% resulted in a CGI/C score of 4 or more ("no change" or "worse"). 32.5% of MAOI trials resulted in a CGI/C score of 1 in patients with early stage TRD, while only 12.1% of MAOI trials resulted in a CGI/C score of 1 in patients with advanced stage TRD (p=0.04). There was a significant negative correlation between the number of prior, failed AD trials and the final CGI/C score (p=0.03). The odds associated with attaining a CGI/C score of 1 diminished by a factor of 30% with each prior failed AD trial. We observed only 1 case of acute hypertension which responded to sublingual nifedipine therapy.

LIMITATIONS

The sample size was limited, and MAOI outcome was not compared with other AD therapy. The adequacy of prior AD trials could not always be verified.

CONCLUSION

These data suggest that MAOI therapy may be beneficial in patients with early stage TRD who are unresponsive to < or = 3 prior treatments. However, the relative efficacy of MAOI therapy in advanced stage TRD remains uncertain.

Bipolar depression: management options

Bipolar depression is the predominant abnormal mood state in bipolar disorder. However, despite the key pertinence of this phase of the condition, the focus of research and indeed of clinical interest in the management of bipolar disorder has been mainly on mania. Bipolar depression has been largely neglected, and early studies often failed to distinguish depression due to major unipolar depression from that due to bipolar disorder. Consequently, many treatments used in the management of major depression have been adopted for use in bipolar depression without any robust evidence of efficacy. The selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), bupropion, tricyclic antidepressants and monoamine oxidase inhibitors are all effective antidepressants in the management of bipolar depression. They are all associated with a small risk of antidepressant-induced mood instability. The mood stabilisers lithium, carbamazepine and valproate semisodium (divalproex sodium) all appear to have modest acute antidepressant properties. Among these, lithium is supported by the strongest data, but the use of lithium in the treatment of bipolar depression as a monotherapeutic agent is limited by its slow onset of action. Recently, there has been a growing body of evidence suggesting that lamotrigine may have particular effectiveness in both the acute and prophylactic management of bipolar depression. Clinical management of bipolar depression involves various combinations of antidepressants and mood stabilisers and is partly determined by the context in which the depressive episode occurs. In general, 'de novo' and 'breakthrough' (where the patient is already receiving medication) bipolar depression may be successfully managed by initiating mood stabiliser monotherapy, to which an antidepressant or second mood stabiliser may be added at a later date, if necessary. Breakthrough episodes of bipolar depression occurring in patients receiving combination therapy (two mood stabilisers or a mood stabiliser plus an antidepressant) require either switching of ongoing medications or further augmentation. If this fails, then novel strategies or ECT should be considered. Bipolar depression is a disabling illness and the predominant mood state for the vast majority of those with bipolar disorder. It therefore warrants prompt management once suitably diagnosed, especially as it is associated with a considerable risk of suicide and in the majority of instances is eminently treatable.

Bipolar depression: pharmacotherapy and related therapeutic strategies

The depressed phase of bipolar affective disorder is a significant cause of suffering, disability, and mortality and represents a major challenge to treating clinicians. This article first briefly reviews the phenomenology and clinical correlates of bipolar depression and then focuses on the major pharmacological treatment options. We strongly recommend use of mood stabilizers as the first-line treatment for the type I form of bipolar depression, largely because longer-term preventative therapy with these agents almost certainly will be indicated. Depressive episodes that do not respond to lithium, divalproex, or another mood stabilizer, or episodes that "breakthrough" despite preventive treatment, often warrant treatment with an antidepressant or electroconvulsive therapy. The necessity of mood stabilizers in the type II form of bipolar depression is less certain, aside from the rapid cycling presentation. Both experts and practicing clinicians recommend bupropion and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors as coequal initial choices, with venlafaxine and monoamine oxidase inhibitors, such as tranylcypromine, preferred for more resistant cases. The risk of antidepressant-induced hypomania or mania with concomitant mood stabilizer therapy is low, on the order of 5% to 10% during acute phase therapy. Additional therapeutic options and optimal durations of therapy also are discussed.

Evidence-based guidelines for treating depressive disorders with antidepressants: a revision of the 1993 British Association for Psychopharmacology guidelines. British Association for Psychopharmacology

A revision of the British Association for Psychopharmacology guidelines for treating depressive disorders with antidepressants was undertaken in order to specify the scope and target of the guidelines and to update the recommendations based explicitly on the available evidence. A consensus meeting, involving experts in depressive disorders and their treatment, reviewed key areas and considered the strength of evidence and clinical implications. The guidelines were drawn up after extensive feedback from participants and interested parties. A literature review is given which identifies the quality of evidence followed by recommendations, the strength of which are based on the level of evidence. The guidelines cover the nature and detection of depressive disorders, acute treatment with antidepressant drugs, choice of drug versus alternative treatment, practical issues in prescribing, management when initial treatment fails, continuation treatment, maintenance treatment to prevent recurrence and stopping treatment.

Venlafaxine in treatment-resistant major depression: a Canadian multicenter, open-label trial

This was an 8-week, multicenter, open-label study of the efficacy and tolerability of venlafaxine in patients with treatment-resistant depression conducted in Canada. Inpatients or outpatients aged 18 to 70 years with major depression were eligible if they had a 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-21) score of 2 > or = 18 and a documented history of unsatisfactory improvement after a minimum of 8 weeks of treatment with an adequate dose of an antidepressant. Treatment with venlafaxine was started at 37.5 mg twice daily, and the dose could be titrated upward to a maximum of 375 mg/day during the first 4 weeks on the basis of the investigator's assessment of clinical response and tolerability. Of the 159 patients enrolled, 152 were evaluable for efficacy. The mean daily venlafaxine dose was 260 mg/day. The mean HAM-D-21 score decreased by 52%, and the mean Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale score decreased by 50% from baseline to day 56. A response (50% improvement from baseline) was achieved by 58% of patients on the HAM-D-21, and a remission (> or = 75% improvement in the HAM-D-21) was observed in 28% at day 56. By day 56, 88% of patients had improved from baseline on the Clinical Global Impression Improvement scale. Only 8% of the patients discontinued for adverse events. The most common adverse events were headache, insomnia, nausea, constipation, diaphoresis, and xerostomia. In conclusion, these results suggest that venlafaxine is effective and well tolerated for the management of patients with treatment-resistant major depression.

Treatment resistant depression: methodological overview and operational criteria

A wide variety of definitions are used for Treatment Resistant Depression (TRD), considering various criteria and different concepts. Some of the key issues are: the diagnosis, the treatment adequacy in terms of dose and duration, the treatment response assessment and the number of failed therapeutic trials required. Systematic research has been characterizing the concept and criteria to define the different variables involved. Lack of consensus on these issues limits comparison across clinical trials and interpretation of treatment efficacy in the management of treatment resistant patients. Through reanalyzes of available data, we point out the limits of TRD definitions and propose conceptual and operational criteria for a collaborative research project on TRD. It appears that a number of variables commonly associated to treatment resistance are independent of patients characteristics and mainly refer to misdiagnosis and inadequate treatment. The proposed criteria are intended for therapeutic trials in TRD, combining the evaluation of treatment efficiency and the validation of the concept of TRD itself. Major depression with poor response to two adequate trials of different classes of antidepressants is proposed for an operational definition of TRD. Rationale for this definition is discussed in contrast to alternative definitions.

Treatment algorithms in treatment-resistant depression

When faced with a patient having treatment-resistant depression, it is essential to maintain a systematic approach to diagnosis and treatment: 1. Consider the presence of comorbid medical or psychiatric illness that may contribute to or cause the refractory state 2. Determine the affective subtype of depression (e.g., unipolar vs. phenotypic variant of bipolar depression) 3. Ensure the presence of adequate antidepressant dosage, plasma concentrations (where applicable), and duration of treatment 4. Apply systematic treatment algorithms, which means (1) initiate the most efficacious "first-line" therapy for a specific depressive subtype (even if that is an MAOI) and (2) initiate augmentation strategies in a systematic fashion. Augmentation strategies should be initiated only after first reviewing prior therapy, considering available treatment alternatives, and examining the relative risk:benefit ratio for each treatment option in the current clinical context. Following these guidelines should prevent the development of "therapeutic nihilism" in both the patient and physician, as well as enhance the ultimate treatment outcome for patients with treatment-resistant depression.

The effect of sequential antidepressant treatment on geriatric depression

This study evaluated the outcome of elderly depressed patients who were refractory to, or intolerant of, an initial trial of nortriptyline and who then underwent systematic treatment with other antidepressant therapies. 101 patients entered the study and 61% responded to nortriptyline, 64% of patients who did not improve with nortriptyline eventually responded to other antidepressant treatments. Response to second-line treatment (phenelzine) was significantly slower than response to the tricyclic antidepressant. Treatment nonresponders were more likely to have a longer episode length at index assessment and higher baseline anxiety scores compared with responders. This study demonstrates the importance of persisting with systematic antidepressant therapy in elderly patients who do not respond to the first trial of treatment.

Pharmacogenetic response to antidepressants in a multicase family with affective disorder

Eight members from two generations of a family met the DSM-III-R criteria for major depression. Four individuals had severe prolonged depressive disorders that did not respond to standard therapeutic doses of tricyclic and new generation antidepressants, but subsequently responded to the monoamine oxidase inhibitor, tranylcypromine. The literature on pharmacogenetics of the antidepressants is sparse. The pattern of selective response to tranylcypromine in this family supports the view that there is a familial tendency to respond to specific antidepressants or antidepressant groups. A history of response to a specific antidepressant in a relative may be helpful when selecting an antidepressant. Families demonstrating preferential response to specific psychotropics may be suitable pedigrees in which to perform linkage analysis using candidate genes related to the site of action of that psychotropic drug.

Lithium augmentation in antidepressant-resistant patients. A quantitative analysis

A quantitative analysis was used to examine the efficacy of lithium augmentation in the acute treatment of depressed patients resistant to a standard trial of an antidepressant. Effect sizes were measured by the odds ratio using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Only controlled trials were included in order to minimise bias in method. A highly statistically significant effect for lithium augmentation was found, the pooled odds ratio being 0.146 and its 95% confidence interval 0.05-0.44 (i.e. the odds of remaining ill are reduced by between 56% and 95% with the use of lithium treatment). While these results support the case for lithium augmentation in treatment-resistant depression, there remains considerable uncertainty over the duration of treatment necessary to see and sustain the treatment response.

Treatment strategy in depression. II. MAO inhibitors in depression resistant to cyclic antidepressants: two controlled crossover studies with tranylcypromine versus L-5-hydroxytryptophan and nomifensine

Antidepressants are ineffective in about 30% of the patients with major depression. Besides electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and lithium, MAO inhibitors have been suggested as an alternative in such patients. In 2 controlled, partial crossover studies involving 47 patients with major depression who had already been treated unsuccessfully with at least 2 cyclic antidepressants, the effect of the MAO inhibitor tranylcypromine was studied. The first study was an open comparison with L-5-hydroxytryptophan (L-5HTP), the second study a double-blind comparison with nomifensine. Neither the patients treated with L-5HTP nor the patients treated with nomifensine, except one, improved. In contrast, tranylcypromine was effective in 50% of the patients. The depressions of the responders to tranylcypromine appeared to be more endogenous (according Newcastle Scale II) and of shorter duration than those of the non-responders. It is concluded that MAO inhibitors such as tranylcypromine are an effective alternative to ECT and lithium in patients with major depression who have failed to respond to cyclic antidepressants.