Strategic use of new generation antidepressants for depression: SUN(^_^)D study protocol

[Pathogenetic basis of modern approaches to the therapy of sleep disorders in the clinic of depression]

Epidemiological studies indicate that about 35% of the world's population periodically suffer from insomnia. Many authors in their studies note sleep disturbances in the clinic of both somatic and mental disorders, often considering sleep disturbances as one of the predictors of these diseases. In psychiatric practice, sleep disorders are most often described in the clinic of depression, which is determined by the general pathophysiological mechanisms of their development due to disruption of the activity of the main neurotransmitter systems of the brain. The results of clinical studies show that the drug of choice in the treatment of sleep disorders in the depression clinic is the antidepressant Mirtazapine, which has a unique profile of pharmacological activity. According to international recommendations, Mirtazapine is a first-line drug in the treatment of anxiety and depressive disorders with sleep disorders and sexual dysfunction caused by taking other antidepressants.

An individualized treatment rule to optimize probability of remission by continuation, switching, or combining antidepressant medications after failing a first-line antidepressant in a two-stage randomized trial

BACKGROUND

There is growing interest in using composite individualized treatment rules (ITRs) to guide depression treatment selection, but best approaches for doing this are not widely known. We develop an ITR for depression remission based on secondary analysis of a recently published trial for second-line antidepression medication selection using a cutting-edge ensemble machine learning method.

METHODS

Data come from the SUN(^_^)D trial, an open-label, assessor blinded pragmatic trial of previously-untreated patients with major depressive disorder from 48 clinics in Japan. Initial clinic-level randomization assigned patients to 50 or 100 mg/day sertraline. We focus on the 1549 patients who failed to remit within 3 weeks and were then rerandomized at the individual-level to continuation with sertraline, switching to mirtazapine, or combining mirtazapine with sertraline. The outcome was remission 9 weeks post-baseline. Predictors included socio-demographics, clinical characteristics, baseline symptoms, changes in symptoms between baseline and week 3, and week 3 side effects.

RESULTS

Optimized treatment was associated with significantly increased cross-validated week 9 remission rates in both samples [5.3% (2.4%), p = 0.016 50 mg/day sample; 5.1% (2.7%), p = 0.031 100 mg/day sample] compared to randomization (30.1-30.8%). Optimization was also associated with significantly increased remission in both samples compared to continuation [24.7% in both: 11.2% (3.8%), p = 0.002 50 mg/day sample; 11.7% (3.9%), p = 0.001 100 mg/day sample]. Non-significant gains were found for optimization compared to switching or combining.

CONCLUSIONS

An ITR can be developed to improve second-line antidepressant selection, but replication in a larger study with more comprehensive baseline predictors might produce stronger and more stable results.

Can personalized treatment prediction improve the outcomes, compared with the group average approach, in a randomized trial? Developing and validating a multivariable prediction model in a pragmatic megatrial of acute treatment for major depression

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials have traditionally been analysed at the aggregate level, assuming that the group average would be applicable to all eligible and similar patients. We re-analyzed a mega-trial of antidepressant therapy for major depression to explore whether a multivariable prediction model may lead to different treatment recommendations for individual participants.

METHODS

The trial compared the second-line treatment strategies of continuing sertraline, combining it with mirtazapine or switching to mirtazapine after initial failure to remit on sertraline among 1,544 patients with major depression. The outcome was the Personal Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) at week 9: the original analyses showed that both combining and switching resulted in greater reduction in PHQ-9 by 1.0 point than continuing. We considered several models of penalized regression or machine learning.

RESULTS

Models using support vector machines (SVMs) provided the best performance. Using SVMs, continuing sertraline was predicted to be the best treatment for 123 patients, combining for 696 patients, and switching for 725 patients. In the last two subgroups, both combining and switching were equally superior to continuing by 1.2 to 1.4 points, resulting in the same treatment recommendations as with the original aggregate data level analyses; in the first subgroup, however, switching was substantively inferior to combining (-3.1, 95%CI: -5.4 to -0.5).

LIMITATIONS

Stronger predictors are needed to make more precise predictions.

CONCLUSIONS

The multivariable prediction models led to improved recommendations for a minority of participants than the group average approach in a megatrial.

Whose depression deteriorates during acute phase antidepressant treatment?

BACKGROUND

Few studies have investigated the proportion of patients with depression who experience worsening of depression symptoms during adequate antidepressant treatment. The current study aimed to investigate the proportion and predictors of worsening depression during antidepressant treatment in a multi-center randomized trial involving patients with major depression.

METHODS

We defined the deterioration of depression using depression symptom severity evaluated by total Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) score increases from week 0 to week 9 during acute phase antidepressant treatment. Patients' baseline demographic and clinical data, change in PHQ-9 scores from week 0 to week 3, and side effects at week 3 were evaluated as potential predictors of subsequent deterioration of depression.

RESULTS

Of 1,647 patients, 99 (6.0%) exhibited deterioration of depression, and this proportion was smaller when reliable change index criteria were applied. Logistic regression analysis revealed that the following factors were significantly associated with deterioration of depression: younger age at onset of first episode of major depressive disorder, current older age, and greater increase in PHQ-9 scores between week 0 and week 3.

LIMITATIONS

The time of the primary endpoint might not have been sufficiently long. The present study did not include a placebo arm, and potentially relevant predictors might not have been comprehensively investigated.

CONCLUSIONS

A small proportion of patients may experience deterioration of depression during acute phase antidepressant treatment. Age at onset at first depressive episode, current age, and early negative response to antidepressants may be useful predictors of subsequent worsening of depression.

Pharmacological interventions for treatment-resistant depression in adults

BACKGROUND

Although antidepressants are often a first-line treatment for adults with moderate to severe depression, many people do not respond adequately to medication, and are said to have treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Little evidence exists to inform the most appropriate 'next step' treatment for these people.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of standard pharmacological treatments for adults with TRD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR) (March 2016), CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science (31 December 2018), the World Health Organization trials portal and ClinicalTrials.gov for unpublished and ongoing studies, and screened bibliographies of included studies and relevant systematic reviews without date or language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with participants aged 18 to 74 years with unipolar depression (based on criteria from DSM-IV-TR or earlier versions, International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10, Feighner criteria or Research Diagnostic Criteria) who had not responded to a minimum of four weeks of antidepressant treatment at a recommended dose. Interventions were: (1) increasing the dose of antidepressant monotherapy; (2) switching to a different antidepressant monotherapy; (3) augmenting treatment with another antidepressant; (4) augmenting treatment with a non-antidepressant. All were compared with continuing antidepressant monotherapy. We excluded studies of non-standard pharmacological treatments (e.g. sex hormones, vitamins, herbal medicines and food supplements).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers used standard Cochrane methods to extract data, assess risk of bias, and resolve disagreements. We analysed continuous outcomes with mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated a relative risk (RR) and 95% CI. Where sufficient data existed, we conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 RCTs (2731 participants). Nine were conducted in outpatient settings and one in both in- and outpatients. Mean age of participants ranged from 42 - 50.2 years, and most were female. One study investigated switching to, or augmenting current antidepressant treatment with, another antidepressant (mianserin). Another augmented current antidepressant treatment with the antidepressant mirtazapine. Eight studies augmented current antidepressant treatment with a non-antidepressant (either an anxiolytic (buspirone) or an antipsychotic (cariprazine; olanzapine; quetiapine (3 studies); or ziprasidone (2 studies)). We judged most studies to be at a low or unclear risk of bias. Only one of the included studies was not industry-sponsored. There was no evidence of a difference in depression severity when current treatment was switched to mianserin (MD on Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) = -1.8, 95% CI -5.22 to 1.62, low-quality evidence)) compared with continuing on antidepressant monotherapy. Nor was there evidence of a difference in numbers dropping out of treatment (RR 2.08, 95% CI 0.94 to 4.59, low-quality evidence; dropouts 38% in the mianserin switch group; 18% in the control). Augmenting current antidepressant treatment with mianserin was associated with an improvement in depression symptoms severity scores from baseline (MD on HAM-D -4.8, 95% CI -8.18 to -1.42; moderate-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in numbers dropping out (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.72; low-quality evidence; 19% dropouts in the mianserin-augmented group; 38% in the control). When current antidepressant treatment was augmented with mirtazapine, there was little difference in depressive symptoms (MD on Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) -1.7, 95% CI -4.03 to 0.63; high-quality evidence) and no evidence of a difference in dropout numbers (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.62; dropouts 2% in mirtazapine-augmented group; 3% in the control). Augmentation with buspirone provided no evidence of a benefit in terms of a reduction in depressive symptoms (MD on Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) -0.30, 95% CI -9.48 to 8.88; low-quality evidence) or numbers of drop-outs (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.53; low-quality evidence; dropouts 11% in buspirone-augmented group; 19% in the control). Severity of depressive symptoms reduced when current treatment was augmented with cariprazine (MD on MADRS -1.50, 95% CI -2.74 to -0.25; high-quality evidence), olanzapine (MD on HAM-D -7.9, 95% CI -16.76 to 0.96; low-quality evidence; MD on MADRS -12.4, 95% CI -22.44 to -2.36; low-quality evidence), quetiapine (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.18; I2 = 6%, high-quality evidence), or ziprasidone (MD on HAM-D -2.73, 95% CI -4.53 to -0.93; I2 = 0, moderate-quality evidence) compared with continuing on antidepressant monotherapy. However, a greater number of participants dropped out when antidepressant monotherapy was augmented with an antipsychotic (cariprazine RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.41; quetiapine RR 1.57, 95% CI: 1.14 to 2.17; ziprasidone RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.55) compared with antidepressant monotherapy, although estimates for olanzapine augmentation were imprecise (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.69). Dropout rates ranged from 10% to 39% in the groups augmented with an antipsychotic, and from 12% to 23% in the comparison groups. The most common reasons for dropping out were side effects or adverse events. We also summarised data about response and remission rates (based on changes in depressive symptoms) for included studies, along with data on social adjustment and social functioning, quality of life, economic outcomes and adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A small body of evidence shows that augmenting current antidepressant therapy with mianserin or with an antipsychotic (cariprazine, olanzapine, quetiapine or ziprasidone) improves depressive symptoms over the short-term (8 to 12 weeks). However, this evidence is mostly of low or moderate quality due to imprecision of the estimates of effects. Improvements with antipsychotics need to be balanced against the increased likelihood of dropping out of treatment or experiencing an adverse event. Augmentation of current antidepressant therapy with a second antidepressant, mirtazapine, does not produce a clinically important benefit in reduction of depressive symptoms (high-quality evidence). The evidence regarding the effects of augmenting current antidepressant therapy with buspirone or switching current antidepressant treatment to mianserin is currently insufficient. Further trials are needed to increase the certainty of these findings and to examine long-term effects of treatment, as well as the effectiveness of other pharmacological treatment strategies.

Trajectory of criterion symptoms of major depression under newly started antidepressant treatment: sleep disturbances and anergia linger on while suicidal ideas and psychomotor symptoms disappear early

OBJECTIVE

In modern psychiatry, depression is diagnosed with the diagnostic criteria; however, the trajectory of each of the criterion symptoms is unknown. This study aims to examine this.

METHODS

We made repeated assessments of the nine diagnostic criterion symptoms with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) among 2011 participants of a 25-week pragmatic randomised controlled trial of sertraline and/or mirtazapine for hitherto untreated major depressive episodes. The changes from baseline were estimated with the mixed-effects model with repeated measures. The time to disappearance of each symptom was modeled using the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.

RESULTS

The total score on PHQ-9 was 18.5 (SD = 3.9, n = 2011) at baseline, which decreased to 15.3 (5.2, n = 2011) at week 1, to 11.5 (5.9, n = 1953) at week 3, to 7.8 (6.0, n = 1927) at week 9, and to 6.0 (5.9, n = 1910) at week 25. Suicidal ideas, psychomotor symptoms decreased rapidly, while anergia and sleep disturbance also decreased but only slowly. The survival analyses confirmed the primary analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Upon initiation of antidepressant treatment, patients with newly treated major depressive episodes can expect their suicidal ideas and psychomotor symptoms to disappear first but sleep disturbances and anergia to linger on.

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for major depressive disorder in adults: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Depression has brought huge disease burden to the world. This systematic review aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for major depressive disorder (MDD). We searched electronic databases with time range from 1990.1.1 to 2018.9.5. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including adult patients with MDD were eligible for inclusion. We conducted network meta-analyses using multivariate meta-analyses models under the frequency framework. Primary outcomes were efficacy (response rate) and safety (overall risk of adverse events). We estimated summary odds ratios (ORs) based on group-level data. 20,937 citations were identified, 91 trials comprising 10,991 participants were included in efficacy study, and 32 trials comprising 5245 participants were included in safety study. In terms of efficacy, all treatments studied (acupuncture, mirtazapine, herbal medicine, venlafaxine, physical exercise, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), bupropion, fluoxetine, and vortioxetine) except for probiotics were significantly more effective than placebo. In terms of safety, bupropion, fluoxetine, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine were significantly less safe than placebo. Herbal medicine and mirtazapine had no significant difference in overall risk of adverse events compared with placebo. Acupuncture, CBT, physical exercise and probiotics were lack of eligible safety data.

Prediction of remission in pharmacotherapy of untreated major depression: development and validation of multivariable prediction models

BACKGROUND

Depression is increasingly recognized as a chronic and relapsing disorder. However, an important minority of patients who start treatment for their major depressive episode recover to euthymia. It is clinically important to be able to predict such individuals.

METHODS

The study is a secondary analysis of a recently completed pragmatic megatrial examining first- and second-line treatments for hitherto untreated episodes of non-psychotic unipolar major depression (n = 2011). Using the first half of the cohort as the derivation set, we applied multiply-imputed stepwise logistic regression with backward selection to build a prediction model to predict remission, defined as scoring 4 or less on the Patient Health Quetionnaire-9 at week 9. We used three successively richer sets of predictors at baseline only, up to week 1, and up to week 3. We examined the external validity of the derived prediction models with the second half of the cohort.

RESULTS

In total, 37.0% (95% confidence interval 34.8-39.1%) were in remission at week 9. Only the models using data up to week 1 or 3 showed reasonable performance. Age, education, length of episode and depression severity remained in the multivariable prediction models. In the validation set, the discrimination of the prediction model was satisfactory with the area under the curve of 0.73 (0.70-0.77) and 0.82 (0.79-0.85), while the calibration was excellent with non-significant goodness-of-fit χ2 values (p = 0.41 and p = 0.29), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients and clinicians can use these prediction models to estimate their predicted probability of achieving remission after acute antidepressant therapy.

Predicting relapse in major depression after successful initial pharmacological treatment

BACKGROUND

Identifying the predictors of relapse could help to develop more individualized treatment strategies for major depression. The study aim was to explore predictors of depression relapse after remission using data from our previous multicenter randomized practical trial of patients with major depression.

METHODS

Our cohort comprised subjects with Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) scores less than 5 after antidepressant treatment for 9 weeks. Relapse was defined as a PHQ-9 score of 5 or more at week 25. We examined patient demographic and clinical characteristics at baseline (age, sex education, job status, marital status, onset age at first depressive episode, number of previous episodes, length of current episode, scores on the nine PHQ-9 criteria at week 0) and Frequency, Intensity, and Burden of Side Effects Rating Scale and PHQ-9 total scores at week 9 (residual symptoms) as potential predictors of depression relapse at week 25.

RESULTS

Of 494 patients remitted at week 9, 71 (14.4%) experienced relapse at week 25. Logistic regression analysis showed that lower PHQ-9 depressive mood score at week 0, higher suicidal ideation score at week 0, and total PHQ-9 score at week 9, and greater severity of side effects at week 9 were significant predictors. On the other hand, when relapse was defined as a PHQ-9 score of 10 or more at week 25, there were no significant predictors.

LIMITATIONS

There may be other important predictors that this study failed to identify and the findings obtained may be sensitive to the specific definition of relapse.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately one-seventh of subjects who remitted after 2 months of acute-phase treatment experienced depression relapse within 4 months of remission. Lower depressive mood and higher suicidal ideation upon development of the current depression episode, the presence of residual symptoms, and greater severity of side effects at remission may predict subsequent depression relapse.

Optimising first- and second-line treatment strategies for untreated major depressive disorder - the SUN☺D study: a pragmatic, multi-centre, assessor-blinded randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

For patients starting treatment for depression, current guidelines recommend titrating the antidepressant dosage to the maximum of the licenced range if tolerated. When patients do not achieve remission within several weeks, recommendations include adding or switching to another antidepressant. However, the relative merits of these guideline strategies remain unestablished.

METHODS

This multi-centre, open-label, assessor-blinded, pragmatic trial involved two steps. Step 1 used open-cluster randomisation, allocating clinics into those titrating sertraline up to 50 mg/day or 100 mg/day by week 3. Step 2 used central randomisation to allocate patients who did not remit after 3 weeks of treatment to continue sertraline, to add mirtazapine or to switch to mirtazapine. The primary outcome was depression severity measured with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) (scores between 0 and 27; higher scores, greater depression) at week 9. We applied mixed-model repeated-measures analysis adjusted for key baseline covariates.

RESULTS

Between December 2010 and March 2015, we recruited 2011 participants with hitherto untreated major depression at 48 clinics in Japan. In step 1, 970 participants were allocated to the 50 mg/day and 1041 to the 100 mg/day arms; 1927 (95.8%) provided primary outcomes. There was no statistically significant difference in the adjusted PHQ-9 score at week 9 between the 50 mg/day arm and the 100 mg/day arm (0.25 point, 95% confidence interval (CI), - 0.58 to 1.07, P = 0.55). Other outcomes proved similar in the two groups. In step 2, 1646 participants not remitted by week 3 were randomised to continue sertraline (n = 551), to add mirtazapine (n = 537) or to switch to mirtazapine (n = 558): 1613 (98.0%) provided primary outcomes. At week 9, adding mirtazapine achieved a reduction in PHQ-9 scores of 0.99 point (0.43 to 1.55, P = 0.0012); switching achieved a reduction of 1.01 points (0.46 to 1.56, P = 0.0012), both relative to continuing sertraline. Combination increased the percentage of remission by 12.4% (6.1 to 19.0%) and switching by 8.4% (2.5 to 14.8%). There were no differences in adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with new onset depression, we found no advantage of titrating sertraline to 100 mg vs 50 mg. Patients unremitted by week 3 gained a small benefit in reduction of depressive symptoms at week 9 by switching sertraline to mirtazapine or by adding mirtazapine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01109693 . Registered on 23 April 2010.

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 21 antidepressant drugs for the acute treatment of adults with major depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorder is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders worldwide in adults. Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments are available; however, because of inadequate resources, antidepressants are used more frequently than psychological interventions. Prescription of these agents should be informed by the best available evidence. Therefore, we aimed to update and expand our previous work to compare and rank antidepressants for the acute treatment of adults with unipolar major depressive disorder.

METHODS

We did a systematic review and network meta-analysis. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Embase, LILACS database, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, PsycINFO, the websites of regulatory agencies, and international registers for published and unpublished, double-blind, randomised controlled trials from their inception to Jan 8, 2016. We included placebo-controlled and head-to-head trials of 21 antidepressants used for the acute treatment of adults (≥18 years old and of both sexes) with major depressive disorder diagnosed according to standard operationalised criteria. We excluded quasi-randomised trials and trials that were incomplete or included 20% or more of participants with bipolar disorder, psychotic depression, or treatment-resistant depression; or patients with a serious concomitant medical illness. We extracted data following a predefined hierarchy. In network meta-analysis, we used group-level data. We assessed the studies' risk of bias in accordance to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Primary outcomes were efficacy (response rate) and acceptability (treatment discontinuations due to any cause). We estimated summary odds ratios (ORs) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42012002291.

FINDINGS

We identified 28 552 citations and of these included 522 trials comprising 116 477 participants. In terms of efficacy, all antidepressants were more effective than placebo, with ORs ranging between 2·13 (95% credible interval [CrI] 1·89-2·41) for amitriptyline and 1·37 (1·16-1·63) for reboxetine. For acceptability, only agomelatine (OR 0·84, 95% CrI 0·72-0·97) and fluoxetine (0·88, 0·80-0·96) were associated with fewer dropouts than placebo, whereas clomipramine was worse than placebo (1·30, 1·01-1·68). When all trials were considered, differences in ORs between antidepressants ranged from 1·15 to 1·55 for efficacy and from 0·64 to 0·83 for acceptability, with wide CrIs on most of the comparative analyses. In head-to-head studies, agomelatine, amitriptyline, escitalopram, mirtazapine, paroxetine, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine were more effective than other antidepressants (range of ORs 1·19-1·96), whereas fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, reboxetine, and trazodone were the least efficacious drugs (0·51-0·84). For acceptability, agomelatine, citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, sertraline, and vortioxetine were more tolerable than other antidepressants (range of ORs 0·43-0·77), whereas amitriptyline, clomipramine, duloxetine, fluvoxamine, reboxetine, trazodone, and venlafaxine had the highest dropout rates (1·30-2·32). 46 (9%) of 522 trials were rated as high risk of bias, 380 (73%) trials as moderate, and 96 (18%) as low; and the certainty of evidence was moderate to very low.

INTERPRETATION

All antidepressants were more efficacious than placebo in adults with major depressive disorder. Smaller differences between active drugs were found when placebo-controlled trials were included in the analysis, whereas there was more variability in efficacy and acceptability in head-to-head trials. These results should serve evidence-based practice and inform patients, physicians, guideline developers, and policy makers on the relative merits of the different antidepressants.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.

Strategic use of new generation antidepressants for depression: SUN(^_^) D protocol update and statistical analysis plan

BACKGROUND

SUN(^_^)D, the Strategic Use of New generation antidepressants for Depression, is an assessor-blinded, parallel-group, multicenter pragmatic mega-trial to examine the optimum treatment strategy for the first- and second-line treatments for unipolar major depressive episodes. The trial has three steps and two randomizations. Step I randomization compares the minimum and the maximum dosing strategy for the first-line antidepressant. Step II randomization compares the continuation, augmentation or switching strategy for the second-line antidepressant treatment. Step III is a naturalistic continuation phase. The original protocol was published in 2011, and we hereby report its updated protocol including the statistical analysis plan.

RESULTS

We implemented two important changes to the original protocol. One is about the required sample size, reflecting the smaller number of dropouts than had been expected. Another is in the organization of the primary and secondary outcomes in order to make the report of the main trial results as pertinent and interpretable as possible for clinical practices. Due to the complexity of the trial, we plan to report the main results in two separate reports, and this updated protocol and the statistical analysis plan have laid out respective primary and secondary outcomes and their analyses. We will convene the blind interpretation committee before the randomization code is broken.

CONCLUSION

This paper presents the updated protocol and the detailed statistical analysis plan for the SUN(^_^)D trial in order to avoid reporting bias and data-driven results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01109693 (registered on 21 April 2010).

Internet abusers associate with a depressive state but not a depressive trait

AIM

The present study investigated three issues: (i) whether Internet abusers display a depressive state without a depressive trait; (ii) which symptoms are shared between Internet abuse and depression; and (iii) which personality characteristics were shown in Internet abusers.

METHODS

Ninety-nine male and 58 female participants aged 18-24 years were screened with the Chen Internet Addiction Scale. After screening, subjects were separated into the high- (n = 73) and low-risk (n = 84) Internet abuser groups. Participants were respectively administered the Chinese version of the Beck Depression Inventory-II to assess a depressive state and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 to assess a depressive trait.

RESULTS

The present results showed that high-risk Internet abusers exhibited a stronger depressive state than low-risk Internet abusers in the Beck Depression Inventory-II. However, high-risk Internet abusers didnot show a depressive trait in the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 compared to low-risk Internet abusers. Therefore, high-risk Internet abuse participants exhibited a depressive state without a depressive trait.

CONCLUSIONS

In a comparison of the symptoms of depression and Internet abuse, it was found that high-risk Internet abuse participants shared some common behavioral mechanisms with depression, including the psychiatric symptoms of loss of interest, aggressive behavior, depressive mood, and guilty feelings. High-risk Internet abuse participants may be more susceptible to a temporal depressive state but not a permanent depressive trait. The present findings have clinical implications for the prevention and treatment of Internet abuse.

Psychotropic prescription patterns among patients diagnosed with depressive disorder based on claims database in Japan

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Clinical guidelines recommend monotherapy with antidepressants for the treatment of major depression. This study examined prescription patterns with regard to both duration and type of treatment used among patients with newly diagnosed non-psychotic major depression based on a claims database from health insurance societies between 2008 and 2011 in Japan.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort (N = 600,000) followed up for 4 years was used to identify patients (age ≥18 years) with newly diagnosed non-psychotic major depression. The prescription patterns and polypharmacy were examined. Four different types of pharmaceutical drugs were defined as possible psychotropic agents for major depression: (1) first- and/or second-generation antidepressants; (2) benzodiazepines; (3) sulpiride; and (4) antipsychotics. The data were analyzed by an intent-to-treat approach at months 0, 1, 3, 6, and 12 from the date of diagnosis.

RESULTS

A total of 7,338 patients (3,684 males and 3,654 females, mean age 36.8 ± 10.9 years) with newly diagnosed non-psychotic major depression were identified. The median duration of treatment was 122 days. The proportion of patients in the cohort prescribed at least one type of defined psychotropic agents was 75.6 % (month 0), 47.3 % (month 1), 36.0 % (month 3), 26.8 % (month 6), and 17.4 % (month 12). The proportion of patients in the cohort prescribed at least one first- and/or second-generation antidepressant was 50.2 % (month 0), 34.9 % (month 1), 27.5 % (month 3), 20.3 % (month 6), and 12.5 % (month 12). The proportion of patients receiving at least one benzodiazepine was 58.0 % (month 0), 36.7 % (month 1), 27.1 % (month 3), 20.0 % (month 6), and 12.0 % (month 12). The proportion of patients receiving an antidepressant as monotherapy was only 12.0 % (month 0), 7.8 % (month 1), 6.5 % (month 3), 4.8 % (month 6), and 2.9 % (month 12), whereas the proportion of patients treated with a benzodiazepine alone was 13.5 % (month 0), 6.9 % (month 1), 4.6 % (month 3), 3.5 % (month 6), and 2.7 % (month 12). Various combinations of polypharmacy were observed. The most common was a combination of at least one antidepressant and benzodiazepine, which was prescribed to 36.7 % (month 0), 25.8 % (month 1), 19.9 % (month 3), 14.9 % (month 6), and 9.2 % (month 12) of the cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on analysis of prescription patterns and type of treatment used for treating non-psychotic major depression, a majority of patients were not treated according to the recommended guidelines in Japan. Various patterns of prescription and use of polypharmacy were observed over time. The median duration of treatment was shorter than the recommendation (6 months) in the guidelines.

Effect of the coadministration of citalopram with mirtazapine or atipamezole on rat contextual conditioned fear

BACKGROUND

Mirtazapine, a noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressant, which blocks the α2-adrenergic autoreceptors and heteroreceptors, has shown anxiolytic properties in clinical trials and preclinical animal experiments. The addition of mirtazapine to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) is clinically suggested to be more effective for anxiety disorders. In this study, we examined the combined effects of mirtazapine and citalopram, an SSRI, on the freezing behavior of rats, which was induced by contextual conditioned fear as an index of anxiety or fear.

METHODS

Male Sprague Dawley rats individually received footshocks in a shock chamber, and 24 hours later, they were given citalopram and/or mirtazapine injections. One hour after citalopram and 30 minutes after mirtazapine administration, freezing behavior was analyzed in the same shock chamber without shocks.

RESULTS

Mirtazapine decreased freezing in a dose-dependent manner, which is consistent with a previous report; it also enhanced an anxiolytic-like effect at a high dose (30 mg/kg) of citalopram. Because mirtazapine blocks α2-adrenoreceptors, the combined effect of atipamezole, a selective α2 receptor antagonist, with citalopram was also examined. Similar to mirtazapine, atipamezole reduced freezing dose-dependently, but the enhancement of citalopram's effects by atipamezole was not clear when compared with mirtazapine.

CONCLUSION

The present findings suggest that mirtazapine has an anxiolytic-like effect and may enhance the anxiolytic-like effect of SSRIs, but this enhancement may not be explained by its anti-α2 property alone.

Prescription patterns following first-line new generation antidepressants for depression in Japan: a naturalistic cohort study based on a large claims database

BACKGROUND

Several studies have described real-world prescription patterns of first-line antidepressants for depression but little is known about their fate in terms of duration, intensity and changes.

METHODS

An inception cohort of new onset non-psychotic depression initiating antidepressant treatment with a new generation antidpressive agent was identified in a large health insurance claims database in Japan between 2009 and 2010. The duration and intensity of first-line antidepressants, the timing and kind of second-line antidepressants and the total duration of antidepressant treatment were examined.

RESULTS

We identified 1592 patients. The starting dose and the maximum dose attained with the first-line agent appeared to be largely in line with the guideline recommendations although the latter tended toward the minimum of the recommended range. The continuity of the first-line antidepressant was far below the guideline recommendations, with 28% never returning after the initial prescription and 55% dropping out within 3 months. Of all the first-line antidepressants, 14% were subsequently augmented by another psychotropic agent while 17% were switched to another antidepressant after a median of 3 or 2 months, respectively. The choice of the second-line agents varied extremely widely. The total duration of antidepressant therapy was as short as a median of 4 months, with 68% stopping treatment by 6 months.

LIMITATIONS

The diagnosis of non-psychotic unipolar depression in the claims database analyses remains approximate.

CONCLUSIONS

The current guidelines are grossly out of touch with the clinical realities. On the one hand, guidelines need to reflect the real-world practices; on the other hand clinicians should limit their treatment options and allow evidence-based comparative effectiveness research among them so that patients shall no longer be given less effective and more effective treatments without being able to distinguish among them.

Novel drug-regulated transcriptional networks in brain reveal pharmacological properties of psychotropic drugs

Background

Despite their widespread use, the biological mechanisms underlying the efficacy of psychotropic drugs are still incompletely known; improved understanding of these is essential for development of novel more effective drugs and rational design of therapy. Given the large number of psychotropic drugs available and their differential pharmacological effects, it would be important to establish specific predictors of response to various classes of drugs.

Results

To identify the molecular mechanisms that may initiate therapeutic effects, whole-genome expression profiling (using 324 Illumina Mouse WG-6 microarrays) of drug-induced alterations in the mouse brain was undertaken, with a focus on the time-course (1, 2, 4 and 8 h) of gene expression changes produced by eighteen major psychotropic drugs: antidepressants, antipsychotics, anxiolytics, psychostimulants and opioids. The resulting database is freely accessible at http://www.genes2mind.org. Bioinformatics approaches led to the identification of three main drug-responsive genomic networks and indicated neurobiological pathways that mediate the alterations in transcription. Each tested psychotropic drug was characterized by a unique gene network expression profile related to its neuropharmacological properties. Functional links that connect expression of the networks to the development of neuronal adaptations (MAPK signaling pathway), control of brain metabolism (adipocytokine pathway), and organization of cell projections (mTOR pathway) were found.

Conclusions

The comparison of gene expression alterations between various drugs opened a new means to classify the different psychoactive compounds and to predict their cellular targets; this is well exemplified in the case of tianeptine, an antidepressant with unknown mechanisms of action. This work represents the first proof-of-concept study of a molecular classification of psychoactive drugs.

The first 100 patients in the SUN(^_^)D trial (strategic use of new generation antidepressants for depression): examination of feasibility and adherence during the pilot phase

BACKGROUND

Initial glitches and unexpected inconsistencies are unavoidable in the early stage of a large, multi-centre trial. Adaptive modifications of the trial's protocol and operational procedures to ensure its smooth running are therefore imperative. We started a large pragmatic, multi-centre, assessor-blinded, 25-week trial to investigate the optimal first- and second-line treatments for untreated episodes of nonpsychotic major depression in 2010 [Strategic Use of New generation antidepressants for Depression, abbreviated SUN(^_^)D] and would like to herein report an examination of the trial's feasibility and adherence among the first 100 participants.

METHODS

We examined the participants' characteristics, the treatments that were allocated and received during each step of the trial, and the quality of the outcome assessments among the first 100 patients enrolled in the SUN(^_^)D trial.

RESULTS

Of the 2,743 first-visit patients who visited the two collaborating centres between December 2010 and July 2011, 382 were judged as potentially eligible, and 100 of these patients provided written informed consent. These patients represented the whole spectrum of mild to very severe depression. Of the 93 patients who had reached Week 3 of the study by the end of July 2011, one withdrew consent for both the treatment and the assessment, and eight withdrew consent for the treatment only. Altogether, the primary outcomes were successfully assessed in 90 (96.8%) of the patients at Week 3. Of the 72 patients who had reached Week 9, three withdrew consent for the treatment, but 70 were successfully interviewed (97.2%). Of the 32 patients who had reached Week 25, 29 (90.5%) were successfully followed up. The inter-rater reliability of the assessments of the primary outcomes was nearly perfect and their successful blinding was confirmed. Minor modifications and clarifications to the protocol were deemed necessary.

DISCUSSION

Given the satisfactory feasibility and adherence to the study protocol and the minor modifications that were necessary, we conclude that the data obtained from the first 100 patients can be safely included in the main study. We now intend to accelerate the study by recruiting more collaborating centres and clinics/hospitals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01109693.

Model of disablement and recovery: knowledge translation in rehabilitation research and practice

Disablement is a multifactorial and complex process that creates a challenge for both the rehabilitation researcher and the clinical practitioner; however, each seeks to improve quality health outcomes for the adult or child with disability. Knowledge translation (KT) is an approach to evidence-based medicine where various evidence sources are aggregated so that clinical decisions regarding intervention selection and dosing result in beneficial care for an individual. Structural equation modeling was used to test a theoretical model of disablement based on the impairment, activity, and participation categories of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) level of functioning. Using available cohort data from a randomized controlled trial of people with poststroke walking disability, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the latent variables-impairment and activity-are separate disablement constructs that limit participation for a person with disability. Path analysis revealed that the direct effect of impairment on participation was not statistically significant; however, the indirect path from impairment to participation through activity was significant (indirect effect). The direct effect of activity on participation was significant. Model assumptions were tested with postintervention data from the same cohort. For people with disability after stroke, the probability that functional tasks could be performed with less effort was greater for those individuals who met or exceeded a physiologic walking threshold after a structured, progressive intervention provided by a physical therapist 6 months earlier. This article discusses how structural equation modeling can be used as a statistical method to explore the causal paths from disability to ability. The knowledge inquiry and synthesis phases of the knowledge-to-action KT framework parallel the essential elements of structural equation modeling; knowledge is created that is theoretically driven, supported by prior research, and analyzed, refined, validated, and tailored to address real-world problems. Using a theoretical framework of disablement with clinical judgment and quantitative research methods, a clinically intuitive model of disablement was validated. The positive dimension is a model of recovery where causal paths lead from disablement to ablement. Innovative approaches in rehabilitation research design along with pragmatic application of research to practice are needed to improve today's health outcomes for people with disability.