GENetic and clinical predictors of treatment response in depression: the GenPod randomised trial protocol

Sex differences in depressive symptoms and tolerability after treatment with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants: Secondary analyses of the GENPOD trial

BACKGROUND

Differences in serotonergic neurotransmission could lead to sex differences in depressive symptoms and tolerability after treatment with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).

AIMS

We investigated whether women have greater reductions in depressive symptoms than men after treatment with an SSRI (citalopram) compared with a noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (reboxetine) control, and after antidepressant treatment irrespective of class. We also investigated tolerability and the influence of menopausal status.

METHODS

Secondary analyses of the GENPOD (GENetic and clinical Predictors Of treatment response in Depression) trial. Six hundred and one people with depression were recruited from UK primary care and randomized to citalopram or reboxetine. Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) score at 6 weeks was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included BDI-II score at 12 weeks, and physical symptoms and treatment discontinuation. We calculated main effects and interaction terms using linear and logistic regression models.

RESULTS

There was no evidence that women experienced greater reductions in depressive symptoms than men when treated with citalopram compared with reboxetine. We also found no evidence of sex differences at six or 12 weeks (irrespective of antidepressant class): men scored -0.31 (95% confidence interval (CI) -2.23 to 1.62) BDI-II points lower than women at six weeks and -0.44 (95% CI -2.62 to 1.74) points lower at 12 weeks. There was no evidence of sex differences in physical symptoms or treatment discontinuation and no evidence for an influence of menopausal status.

CONCLUSION

Citalopram was not more effective in women compared with men and there was no difference in tolerability. Women and men had similar prognosis after SSRI treatment and similar prognosis regardless of antidepressant class. Findings were unaltered by menopausal status.

Antidepressant treatment with sertraline for adults with depressive symptoms in primary care: the PANDA research programme including RCT

Background

Despite a growing number of prescriptions for antidepressants (over 70 million in 2018), there is uncertainty about when people with depression might benefit from antidepressant medication and concern that antidepressants are prescribed unnecessarily.

Objectives

The main objective of the PANDA (What are the indications for Prescribing ANtiDepressAnts that will lead to a clinical benefit?) research programme was to provide more guidance about when antidepressants are likely to benefit people with depression. We aimed to estimate the minimal clinically important difference for commonly used self-administered scales for depression and anxiety, and to understand more about how patients respond to such assessments. We carried out an observational study of patients with depressive symptoms and a placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial of sertraline versus placebo to estimate the treatment effect in UK primary care. The hypothesis was that the severity and duration of symptoms were related to treatment response.

Design

The programme consisted of three phases. The first phase relied on the secondary analysis of existing data extracted from published trials. The second phase was the PANDA cohort study of patients with depressive symptoms who presented to primary care and were followed up 2, 4 and 6 weeks after a baseline assessment. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used in the analysis. The third phase was a multicentre randomised placebo-controlled double-blind trial of sertraline versus placebo in patients presenting to primary care with depressive symptoms.

Setting

UK primary care in Bristol, London, Liverpool and York.

Participants

Patients aged 18–74 years who were experiencing depressive symptoms in primary care. Eligibility for the PANDA randomised controlled trial included that there was uncertainty about the benefits about treatment with an antidepressant.

Interventions

In the PANDA randomised controlled trial, patients were individually randomised to 100 mg daily of sertraline or an identical placebo. The PANDA cohort study was an observational study.

Main outcome measures

Depressive symptoms measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire were the primary outcome for the randomised controlled trial. Other outcomes included anxiety symptoms using the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7; depressive symptoms using the Beck Depression Inventory, version 2; health-related quality of life; self-reported improvement; and cost-effectiveness.

Results

The secondary analysis of existing randomised controlled trials [GENetic and clinical Predictors Of treatment response in Depression (GenPod), TREAting Depression with physical activity (TREAD) and Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cognitive Behavioural Therapy as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for treatment-resistant depression in primary care (CoBalT)] found evidence that the minimal clinically important difference increased as the initial severity of depressive symptoms rose. Our estimates of minimal clinically important difference were a 17% and 18% reduction in Beck Depression Inventory scores for GenPod and TREAD, respectively. In CoBalT, a 32% reduction corresponded to the minimal clinically important difference but the participants in this study had depression that had not responded to antidepressants. In the PANDA study cohort, and from our analyses in existing data, we found that the minimal clinically important difference varies considerably with the initial severity of depressive and anxiety symptoms. Expressing the minimal clinically important difference as a percentage reduction reduces this variation at higher scores, but at low scores the percentage reduction increased substantially. The results from the qualitative studies pointed out many limitations of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items in assessing change and recovery from depression. In the PANDA randomised controlled trial, there was no evidence that sertraline resulted in a reduction in depressive symptoms within 6 weeks of randomisation, but there was some evidence of a reduction by 12 weeks. However, sertraline led to a reduction in anxiety symptoms, an improvement of mental health-related quality of life and an increased likelihood of reporting improvement. The mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items score at 6 weeks was 7.98 (standard deviation 5.63) in the sertraline group and 8.76 (standard deviation 5.86) in the placebo group (5% relative reduction, 95% confidence interval –7% to 15%; p = 0.41). Of the secondary outcomes, there was strong evidence that sertraline reduced anxiety symptoms (Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 score reduced by 17% (95% confidence interval 9% to 25%; p = 0.00005). Sertraline had a high probability (> 90%) of being cost-effective at 12 weeks. The PANDA randomised controlled trial found no evidence that treatment response or cost-effectiveness was related to severity or duration of depressive symptoms. The minimal clinically important difference estimates suggested that sertraline’s effect on anxiety, but not on depression, was likely to be clinically important.

Limitations

The results from the randomised controlled trial and the estimates of minimal clinically important difference were not sufficiently precise to provide specific clinical guidance for individuals. We had low power in testing whether or not initial severity and duration of depressive symptoms are related to treatment response.

Conclusions

The results of the trial support the use of sertraline and probably other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors because of their action in reducing anxiety symptoms and the likelihood of longer-term benefit on depressive symptoms. Sertraline could be prescribed for anxiety symptoms that commonly occur with depression and many patients will experience a clinical benefit. The Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items and similar self-administered scales should not be used on their own to assess clinical outcome, but should be supplemented with further clinical assessment.

Future work

We need to examine the longer-term effects of antidepressant treatment. We need more precise estimates of the treatment effects and minimal clinically important difference at different severities to provide more specific guidance for individuals. However, the methods we have developed provide an approach towards providing such detailed guidance.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN84544741 and EudraCT number 2013-003440-22.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 7, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Effect of cytochrome CYP2C19 metabolizing activity on antidepressant response and side effects: Meta-analysis of data from genome-wide association studies

Cytochrome (CYP) P450 enzymes have a primary role in antidepressant metabolism and variants in these polymorphic genes are targets for pharmacogenetic investigation. This is the first meta-analysis to investigate how CYP2C19 polymorphisms predict citalopram/escitalopram efficacy and side effects. CYP2C19 metabolic phenotypes comprise poor metabolizers (PM), intermediate and intermediate+ metabolizers (IM; IM+), extensive and extensive+ metabolizers (EM [wild type]; EM+) and ultra-rapid metabolizers (UM) defined by the two most common CYP2C19 functional polymorphisms (rs4244285 and rs12248560) in Caucasians. These polymorphisms were genotyped or imputed from genome-wide data in four samples treated with citalopram or escitalopram (GENDEP, STAR*D, GenPod, PGRN-AMPS). Treatment efficacy was assessed by standardized percentage symptom improvement and by remission. Side effect data were available at weeks 2-4, 6 and 9 in three samples. A fixed-effects meta-analysis was performed using EM as the reference group. Analysis of 2558 patients for efficacy and 2037 patients for side effects showed that PMs had higher symptom improvement (SMD = 0.43, CI = 0.19-0.66) and higher remission rates (OR = 1.55, CI = 1.23-1.96) compared to EMs. At weeks 2-4, PMs showed higher risk of gastro-intestinal (OR = 1.26, CI = 1.08-1.47), neurological (OR = 1.28, CI = 1.07-1.53) and sexual side effects (OR = 1.52, CI = 1.23-1.87; week 6 values were similar). No difference was seen at week 9 or in total side effect burden. PMs did not have higher risk of dropout at week 4 compared to EMs. Antidepressant dose was not different among CYP2C19 groups. CYP2C19 polymorphisms may provide helpful information for guiding citalopram/escitalopram treatment, despite PMs being relatively rare among Caucasians (∼2%).

Pharmacogenomics in the treatment of mood disorders: Strategies and Opportunities for personalized psychiatry

Personalized medicine (personalized psychiatry in a specific setting) is a new model towards individualized care, in which knowledge from genomics and other omic pillars (microbiome, epigenomes, proteome, and metabolome) will be combined with clinical data to guide efforts to new drug development and targeted prescription of the existing treatment options. In this review, we summarize pharmacogenomic studies in mood disorders that may lay the foundation towards personalized psychiatry. In addition, we have discussed the possible strategies to integrate data from omic pillars as a future path to personalized psychiatry. So far, the progress of uncovering single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) underpinning treatment efficacy in mood disorders (e.g., SNPs associated with selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors or lithium treatment response in patients with bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder) are encouraging, but not adequate. Genetic studies have pointed to a number of SNPs located at candidate genes that possibly influence response to; (a) antidepressants COMT, HTR2A, HTR1A, CNR1, SLC6A4, NPY, MAOA, IL1B, GRIK4, BDNF, GNB3, FKBP5, CYP2D6, CYP2C19, and ABCB1 and (b) mood stabilizers (lithium) 5-HTT, TPH, DRD1, FYN, INPP1, CREB1, BDNF, GSK3β, ARNTL, TIM, DPB, NR3C1, BCR, XBP1, and CACNG2. We suggest three alternative and complementary strategies to implement knowledge gained from pharmacogenomic studies. The first strategy can be to implement diagnostic, therapeutic, or prognostic genetic testing based on candidate genes or gene products. The second alternative is an integrative analysis (systems genomics approach) to combine omics data obtained from the different pillars of omics investigation, including genomics, epigenomes, proteomics, metabolomics and microbiomes. The main goal of system genomics is an identification and understanding of biological pathways, networks, and modules underlying drug-response. The third strategy aims to the development of multivariable diagnostic or prognostic algorithms (tools) combining individual's genomic information (polygenic score) with other predictors (e.g., omics pillars, neuroimaging, and clinical characteristics) to finally predict therapeutic outcomes. An integration of molecular science with that of traditional clinical practice is the way forward to drug discoveries and novel therapeutic approaches and to characterize psychiatric disorders leading to a better predictive, preventive, and personalized medicine (PPPM) in psychiatry. With future advances in the omics technology and methodological developments for data integration, the goal of PPPM in psychiatry is promising.

Allowing for non-adherence to treatment in a randomized controlled trial of two antidepressants (citalopram versus reboxetine): an example from the GENPOD trial

BACKGROUND

Meta-analyses suggest that reboxetine may be less effective than other antidepressants. Such comparisons may be biased by lower adherence to reboxetine and subsequent handling of missing outcome data. This study illustrates how to adjust for differential non-adherence and hence derive an unbiased estimate of the efficacy of reboxetine compared with citalopram in primary care patients with depression.

METHOD

A structural mean modelling (SMM) approach was used to generate adherence-adjusted estimates of the efficacy of reboxetine compared with citalopram using GENetic and clinical Predictors Of treatment response in Depression (GENPOD) trial data. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses were performed to compare estimates of effectiveness with results from previous meta-analyses.

RESULTS

At 6 weeks, 92% of those randomized to citalopram were still taking their medication, compared with 72% of those randomized to reboxetine. In ITT analysis, there was only weak evidence that those on reboxetine had a slightly worse outcome than those on citalopram [adjusted difference in mean Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) scores: 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.52 to 2.90, p = 0.17]. There was no evidence of a difference in efficacy when differential non-adherence was accounted for using the SMM approach for mean BDI (-0.29, 95% CI -3.04 to 2.46, p = 0.84) or the other mental health outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no evidence of a difference in the efficacy of reboxetine and citalopram when these drugs are taken and tolerated by depressed patients. The SMM approach can be implemented in standard statistical software to adjust for differential non-adherence and generate unbiased estimates of treatment efficacy for comparisons of two (or more) active interventions.

Are multiple physical symptoms a poor prognostic factor or just a marker of depression severity? Secondary analysis of the GenPod trial

BACKGROUND

Using data from the GenPod trial this study investigates: (i) if depressed individuals with multiple physical symptoms have a poorer response to antidepressants before and after adjustment for baseline Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II); and (ii) if reboxetine is more effective than citalopram in depression with multiple physical symptoms.

METHODS

Linear regression models were used to estimate differences in mean BDI-II score at 6 and 12 weeks.

RESULTS

Before adjusting for baseline BDI-II, the difference in mean BDI-II score between no and multiple physical symptoms was 4.5 (95% CI 1.87, 7.14) at 6 weeks, 4.51 (95% CI 1.60, 7.42) at 12 weeks. After adjustment for baseline BDI-II, there was no evidence of a difference in outcome according to physical symptoms with a difference in mean BDI-II of 2.17 (95% CI -0.39, 4.73) at 6 weeks and 2.43 (95% CI -0.46, 5.32) at 12 weeks. There was no evidence that reboxetine was more effective than citalopram in those with multiple physical symptoms at 6 (P=0.18) or 12 weeks (P=0.24).

LIMITATIONS

Differential non-adherence between treatment arms has the potential to bias estimates of treatment efficacy.

CONCLUSION

Multiple physical symptoms predict response to antidepressants, but not after adjustment for baseline depression severity. Physical symptoms could be a marker of severe depression rather than an independent prognostic factor and depression should be considered in patients with multiple physical symptoms. Treatment with reboxetine conferred no advantage over citalopram in those with physical symptoms, and it is less well tolerated.

Paroxetine versus other anti-depressive agents for depression

BACKGROUND

Paroxetine is the most potent inhibitor of the reuptake of serotonin of all selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and has been studied in many randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, these comparative studies provided contrasting findings and systematic reviews of RCTs have always considered the SSRIs as a group, and evidence applicable to this group of drugs might not be applicable to paroxetine alone. The present systematic review assessed the efficacy and tolerability profile of paroxetine in comparison with tricyclics (TCAs), SSRIs and newer or non-conventional agents.

OBJECTIVES

1. To determine the efficacy of paroxetine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents in alleviating the acute symptoms of Major Depressive Disorder.2. To review acceptability of treatment with paroxetine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents.3. To investigate the adverse effects of paroxetine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialized Register (CCDANCTR, to 30 September 2012), which includes relevant randomised controlled trials from the following bibliographic databases: The Cochrane Library (all years), EMBASE (1974 to date), MEDLINE (1950 to date) and PsycINFO (1967 to date). Reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews were handsearched. Pharmaceutical companies marketing paroxetine and experts in this field were contacted for supplemental data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials allocating participants with major depression to paroxetine versus any other antidepressants (ADs), both conventional (such as TCAs, SSRIs) and newer or non-conventional (such as hypericum). For trials which had a cross-over design, only results from the first randomisation period were considered.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently checked eligibility and extracted data using a standard form. Data were then entered in RevMan 5.2 with a double-entry procedure. Information extracted included study and participant characteristics, intervention details, settings and efficacy, acceptability and tolerability measures.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 115 randomised controlled trials (26,134 participants) were included. In 54 studies paroxetine was compared with older ADs, in 21 studies with another SSRI, and in 40 studies with a newer or non-conventional antidepressant other than SSRIs. For the primary outcome (patients who responded to treatment), paroxetine was more effective than reboxetine at increasing patients who responded early to treatment (Odds Ratio (OR): 0.66, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.87, number needed to treat to provide benefit (NNTb) = 16, 95% CI 10 to 50, at one to four weeks, 3 RCTs, 1375 participants, moderate quality of evidence), and less effective than mirtazapine (OR: 2.39, 95% CI 1.42 to 4.02, NNTb = 8, 95% CI 5 to 14, at one to four weeks, 3 RCTs, 726 participants, moderate quality of evidence). Paroxetine was less effective than citalopram in improving response to treatment (OR: 1.54, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.28, NNTb = 9, 95% CI 5 to 102, at six to 12 weeks, 1 RCT, 406 participants, moderate quality of evidence). We found no clear evidence that paroxetine was more or less effective compared with other antidepressants at increasing response to treatment at acute (six to 12 weeks), early (one to four weeks), or longer term follow-up (four to six months). Paroxetine was associated with a lower rate of adverse events than amitriptyline, imipramine and older ADs as a class, but was less well tolerated than agomelatine and hypericum. Included studies were generally at unclear or high risk of bias due to poor reporting of allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessment, and incomplete reporting of outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Some possibly clinically meaningful differences between paroxetine and other ADs exist, but no definitive conclusions can be drawn from these findings. In terms of response, there was a moderate quality of evidence that citalopram was better than paroxetine in the acute phase (six to 12 weeks), although only one study contributed data. In terms of early response to treatment (one to four weeks) there was moderate quality of evidence that mirtazapine was better than paroxetine and that paroxetine was better than reboxetine. However there was no clear evidence that paroxetine was better or worse compared with other antidepressants at increasing response to treatment at any time point. Even if some differences were identified, the findings from this review are better thought as hypothesis forming rather than hypothesis testing and it would be reassuring to see the conclusions replicated in future trials. Finally, most of included studies were at unclear or high risk of bias, and were sponsored by the drug industry. The potential for overestimation of treatment effect due to sponsorship bias should be borne in mind.

Genetic predictors of antidepressant side effects: a grouped candidate gene approach in the Genome-Based Therapeutic Drugs for Depression (GENDEP) study

BACKGROUND

The unwanted side effects associated with antidepressants are key determinants of treatment adherence in depression; propensity to experience these adverse drug reactions (ADRs) may be influenced by genetic variation. However, previous work attempting to ascertain the genetic variants involved has had limited success, in part due to the range of ADRs reported with antidepressants.

METHOD

ADRs reported with antidepressant treatment were categorised using their likely pharmacological basis; adrenergic, cholinergic, serotonergic and histaminergic. To identify genetic predictors of susceptibility to each group of ADRs, a candidate gene analysis was performed with data from 431 depressed patients (from a total sample size of 811 patients) enrolled in the Genome-Based Therapeutic Drugs for Depression (GENDEP) project, who were randomly allocated to receive treatment with escitalopram or nortriptyline. Data from 474 patients treated with citalopram or reboxetine in the GenPod project (total sample of 601 patients) were used for replication of significant findings.

RESULTS

We found no significant predictors of presumed adrenergic, cholinergic and histaminergic ADRs. Putative serotonergic ADRs were significantly associated with variation in the gene encoding the serotonin 2C receptor (HTR2C, rs6644093, odds ratio (OR)=1.72, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.31-2.25, p=7.43×10(-5)) in GENDEP. However, this finding was not replicated in GenPod.

CONCLUSIONS

The association between serotonergic side effects and variation in the HTR2C gene in the GENDEP sample supports the hypothesis that serotonin receptor-mediated mechanisms underlie these adverse reactions, however this finding was not replicated in GenPod.

Copy number variants and therapeutic response to antidepressant medication in major depressive disorder

It would be beneficial to find genetic predictors of antidepressant response to help personalise treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). Rare copy number variants (CNVs) have been implicated in several psychiatric disorders, including MDD, but their role in antidepressant response has yet to be investigated. CNV data were available for 1565 individuals with MDD from the NEWMEDS (Novel Methods leading to New Medications in Depression and Schizophrenia) consortium with prospective data on treatment outcome with either a serotonergic or noradrenergic antidepressant. No association was seen between the presence of CNV (rare or common), the overall number of CNVs or genomic CNV 'burden' and antidepressant response. Specific CNVs were nominally associated with antidepressant response, including 15q13.3 duplications and exonic NRXN1 deletions. These were associated with poor response to antidepressants. Overall burden of CNVs is unlikely to contribute to personalising antidepressant treatment. Specific CNVs associated with antidepressant treatment require replication and further study to confirm their role in the therapeutic action of antidepressant.

Adverse effects from antidepressant treatment: randomised controlled trial of 601 depressed individuals

RATIONALE

Premature discontinuation of antidepressant drugs is a frequent clinical problem. Adverse effects are common, occur early on in treatment and are reported to be one of the main reasons for discontinuation of antidepressant treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the association between adverse effects occurring in the first 2 weeks of antidepressant treatment and discontinuation by 6 weeks as the outcome. To investigate the time profile of adverse effects induced by the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor citalopram and the noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor reboxetine over 12 weeks of treatment.

METHODS

Six hundred and one depressed individuals were randomly allocated to either citalopram (20 mg daily) or reboxetine (4 mg twice daily). A modified version of the Toronto Side Effects Scale was used to measure 14 physical symptoms at baseline (medication free) and at 2, 6 and 12 weeks after randomisation.

RESULTS

Individuals randomised to reboxetine reported a greater number of adverse effects and were more likely to stop treatment than individuals receiving citalopram. Dizziness (OR 1.83; 95% CI 1.09, 3.09; p = 0.02) and the total number of adverse effects (OR 1.12; 95% CI 1.00, 1.25; p = 0.06) reported at 2 weeks were associated with discontinuation from overall antidepressant treatment by 6 weeks. Reports of adverse effects tended to reduce throughout the 12 weeks for both antidepressants.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of adverse effects were not individually associated with discontinuation from antidepressant treatment. Reports of physical symptoms tended to reduce over time. The physical symptoms that did not reduce over time may represent symptoms of depression rather than antidepressant-induced adverse effects.

Value of genetic and epigenetic testing as biomarkers of response to antidepressant treatment

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is one of the most prevalent and disabling psychiatric disorders worldwide and therefore an important public health priority. The selection process of antidepressant treatment is primarily guided by trial and error, and the outcomes with current antidepressant strategies are disappointing. The biological background of the disease is heterogeneous with presumably multiple biological systems involved. With the aim to individualize antidepressant treatment, multiple candidate gene and a few genome-wide association studies have been performed, but so far with very limited success. To address the dynamic changes of depressive symptoms and their response to treatment, recent studies focus on epigenetic mechanisms, as these are modulated by environmental stimuli and adaptive to different stages of the disorder. In the present paper, after a brief summary of the most important results from pharmacogenetic studies in MDD, we comment on the current and potential future value of genetic testing as a biomarker of response to antidepressant treatment. The new and exciting field of epigenetic mechanisms in antidepressant drug treatment will be presented in the second part of this review.

The acute side effects of bright light therapy: a placebo-controlled investigation

Despite the emergence of numerous clinical and non-clinical applications of bright light therapy (LT) in recent decades, the prevalence and severity of LT side effects have not yet been fully explicated. A few adverse LT effects-headache, eye strain, irritability, and nausea-have been consistently reported among depressed individuals and other psychiatric cohorts, but there exists little published evidence regarding LT side effects in non-clinical populations, who often undergo LT treatment of considerably briefer duration. Accordingly, in the present study we examined, in a randomized sample of healthy young adults, the acute side effects of exposure to a single 30-minute session of bright white light (10,000 lux) versus dim red light (< 500 lux). Across a broad range of potential side effects, repeated-measures analyses of variance revealed no significant group-by-time (Pre, Post) interactions. In other words, bright light exposure was not associated with a significantly higher incidence of any reported side effect than was the placebo control condition. Nevertheless, small but statistically significant increases in both eye strain and blurred vision were observed among both the LT and control groups. Overall, these results suggest that the relatively common occurrence of adverse side effects observed in the extant LT literature may not fully extend to non-clinical populations, especially for healthy young adults undergoing LT for a brief duration.

Psychological advocacy toward healing (PATH): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Domestic violence and abuse (DVA), defined as threatening behavior or abuse by adults who are intimate partners or family members, is a key public health and clinical priority. The prevalence of DVA in the United Kingdom and worldwide is high, and its impact on physical and mental health is detrimental and persistent. There is currently little support within healthcare settings for women experiencing DVA. Psychological problems in particular may be difficult to manage outside specialist services, as conventional forms of therapy such as counseling that do not address the violence may be ineffective or even harmful. The aim of this study is to assess the overall effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a novel psychological intervention tailored specifically for survivors of DVA and delivered by domestic violence advocates based in third-sector organizations.

Methods and study design

This study is an open, pragmatic, parallel group, individually randomized controlled trial. Women ages 16 years and older experiencing domestic violence are being enrolled and randomly allocated to receive usual DVA agency advocacy support (control) or usual DVA agency support plus psychological intervention (intervention). Those in the intervention group will receive eight specialist psychological advocacy (SPA) sessions weekly or fortnightly, with two follow-up sessions, 1 month and then 3 months later. This will be in addition to any advocacy support sessions each woman receives. Women in the control group will receive usual DVA agency support but no additional SPA sessions. The aim is to recruit 250 women to reach the target sample size. The primary outcomes are psychological well-being and depression severity at 1 yr from baseline, as measured by the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation–Outcome Measure (CORE-OM) and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), respectively. Secondary outcome measures include anxiety, posttraumatic stress, severity and frequency of abuse, quality of life and cost-effectiveness of the intervention. Data from a subsample of women in both groups will contribute to a nested qualitative study with repeat interviews during the year of follow-up.

Discussion

This study will contribute to the evidence base for management of the psychological needs of women experiencing DVA. The findings will have important implications for healthcare commissioners and providers, as well as third sector specialist DVA agencies providing services to this client group.

Trial registration

ISRCTN58561170

Citalopram versus other anti-depressive agents for depression

BACKGROUND

Recent US and UK clinical practice guidelines recommend that second-generation antidepressants should be considered amongst the best first-line options when drug therapy is indicated for a depressive episode. Systematic reviews have already highlighted some differences in efficacy between second-generation antidepressants. Citalopram, one of the first selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) introduced in the market, is one of these antidepressant drugs that clinicians use for routine depression care.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence for the efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of citalopram in comparison with tricyclics, heterocyclics, other SSRIs and other conventional and non-conventional antidepressants in the acute-phase treatment of major depression.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to February 2012. No language restriction was applied. We contacted pharmaceutical companies and experts in this field for supplemental data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials allocating patients with major depression to citalopram versus any other antidepressants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data. Information extracted included study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details and outcome measures in terms of efficacy (the number of patients who responded or remitted), patient acceptability (the number of patients who failed to complete the study) and tolerability (side-effects).

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-seven trials compared citalopram with other antidepressants (such as tricyclics, heterocyclics, SSRIs and other antidepressants, either conventional ones, such as mirtazapine, venlafaxine and reboxetine, or non-conventional, like hypericum). Citalopram was shown to be significantly less effective than escitalopram in achieving acute response (odds ratio (OR) 1.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 2.02), but more effective than paroxetine (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.96) and reboxetine (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.91). Significantly fewer patients allocated to citalopram withdrew from trials due to adverse events compared with patients allocated to tricyclics (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.78) and fewer patients allocated to citalopram reported at least one side effect than reboxetine or venlafaxine (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.97 and OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.88, respectively).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Some statistically significant differences between citalopram and other antidepressants for the acute phase treatment of major depression were found in terms of efficacy, tolerability and acceptability. Citalopram was more efficacious than paroxetine and reboxetine and more acceptable than tricyclics, reboxetine and venlafaxine, however, it seemed to be less efficacious than escitalopram. As with most systematic reviews in psychopharmacology, the potential for overestimation of treatment effect due to sponsorship bias and publication bias should be borne in mind when interpreting review findings. Economic analyses were not reported in the included studies, however, cost effectiveness information is needed in the field of antidepressant trials.

Does baseline fatigue influence treatment response to reboxetine or citalopram in depression? An open label randomized controlled trial

It has been suggested that antidepressants that increase noradrenergic transmission should be better than serotonergic antidepressants at treating fatigue in depression. We conducted a secondary analysis of an RCT in which patients with depression were randomly assigned to reboxetine (a noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor [NARI]) or citalopram (a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor [SSRI]). We investigated the difference between citalopram and reboxetine in treating the symptom of fatigue in depression, and also in treating depression with high levels of baseline fatigue. We found no difference between citalopram and reboxetine in terms of improvement in fatigue at six weeks (0.11, 95% confidence interval (-0.28, 0.49); p = 0.59:), or at 12 weeks. Using the Beck Depression Inventory at 12 weeks as the outcome measure, we found some evidence in support of our hypothesis that reboxetine is more effective than citalopram in treating depression in those with high baseline fatigue (interaction term: -2.87, 95% confidence interval (-5.15, -0.60); p = 0.01). We conclude that there is no evidence of any difference between reboxetine and citalopram in their efficacy in treating fatigue as a symptom of depression, but that reboxetine may be more effective in treating depression with high levels of fatigue. Fatigue might be useful in the prediction of response to NARIs or SSRIs.

Severity of depression and response to antidepressants: GENPOD randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Antidepressant prescribing is widespread. Nonetheless, response to antidepressants is variable. If it was possible to predict response to medication and thus tailor treatment accordingly, this would not only improve patient outcomes but may also have economic benefits.

AIMS

To test the hypothesis that individuals with more severe depression would benefit more from noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (NARIs) than selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) compared with individuals with less severe depression.

METHOD

Individuals recruited from UK primary care who met ICD-10 criteria for a depressive episode and scored 15 or more on the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) were randomised to either an SSRI (citalopram 20 mg daily) or a NARI (reboxetine 4 mg twice daily). Randomisation was by means of a remote automated telephone system. The main outcome was depressive symptoms measured by the BDI total score 6 weeks after randomisation. (

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN31345163.)

RESULTS

In total, 601 participants were randomised (citalopram: n = 298, reboxetine: n = 303). Ninety-one per cent were followed up at 6 weeks (citalopram: n = 274, reboxetine: n = 272). There was little evidence to support an interaction between treatment and severity of depression (interaction term: 0.02, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.62, P = 0.96). Adjustment for potential confounders (age, gender, employment status, history of depression, number of life events and social support) did not affect the findings (interaction term: 0.06, 95% CI -0.54 to 0.66, P = 0.85).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with NARIs does not confer any advantage over SSRI treatment for outcome in those with more severe depressive illness presenting in primary care.

Genetic predictors of response to serotonergic and noradrenergic antidepressants in major depressive disorder: a genome-wide analysis of individual-level data and a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

It has been suggested that outcomes of antidepressant treatment for major depressive disorder could be significantly improved if treatment choice is informed by genetic data. This study aims to test the hypothesis that common genetic variants can predict response to antidepressants in a clinically meaningful way.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

The NEWMEDS consortium, an academia-industry partnership, assembled a database of over 2,000 European-ancestry individuals with major depressive disorder, prospectively measured treatment outcomes with serotonin reuptake inhibiting or noradrenaline reuptake inhibiting antidepressants and available genetic samples from five studies (three randomized controlled trials, one part-randomized controlled trial, and one treatment cohort study). After quality control, a dataset of 1,790 individuals with high-quality genome-wide genotyping provided adequate power to test the hypotheses that antidepressant response or a clinically significant differential response to the two classes of antidepressants could be predicted from a single common genetic polymorphism. None of the more than half million genetic markers significantly predicted response to antidepressants overall, serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, or differential response to the two types of antidepressants (genome-wide significance p<5×10(-8)). No biological pathways were significantly overrepresented in the results. No significant associations (genome-wide significance p<5×10(-8)) were detected in a meta-analysis of NEWMEDS and another large sample (STAR*D), with 2,897 individuals in total. Polygenic scoring found no convergence among multiple associations in NEWMEDS and STAR*D.

CONCLUSIONS

No single common genetic variant was associated with antidepressant response at a clinically relevant level in a European-ancestry cohort. Effects specific to particular antidepressant drugs could not be investigated in the current study. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Polymorphism of the 5-HT transporter and response to antidepressants: randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Antidepressants exhibit a variety of pharmacological actions including inhibition of the serotonin and noradrenaline transporters. We wished to investigate whether genetic variation could be used to target or personalise treatment, in a comparison of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) with noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (NARIs).

AIMS

To test the hypothesis that patients homozygous for the long (insertion) polymorphism of the serotonin transporter (5-HTTLPR) have an increased response to SSRI antidepressants but not to NARI antidepressants.

METHOD

In an individually randomised, parallel-group controlled trial, people meeting criteria for a depressive episode who were referred by their general practitioner were randomised to receive either citalopram (an SSRI) or reboxetine (an NARI). Randomisation was by means of a remote automated system accessed by telephone. The main outcome was depressive symptoms, measured by Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) total score 6 weeks after randomisation. The trial was registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry (ISRCTN31345163).

RESULTS

Altogether 298 participants were randomised to receive citalopram and 303 were randomised to reboxetine. At 6 weeks follow-up, complete data were available for 258 participants taking citalopram and 262 taking reboxetine. We found no evidence to support an influence of 5-HTTLPR on outcome following antidepressant treatment. The interaction term for BDI score at 6 weeks was 0.50 (95% CI -2.04 to 3.03, P = 0.70), which indicated that responses to the SSRI and NARI were similar irrespective of 5-HTTLPR genotype.

CONCLUSIONS

It is unlikely that the 5-HTTLPR polymorphism alone will be clinically useful in predicting response to antidepressants in people with depression.

Involving patients with depression in research: survey of patients' attitudes to participation

BACKGROUND

Clinicians report barriers to involving their patients in mental health research and have concerns that participation may have negative effects.

AIM

To investigate patients' views on participating in a primary care randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing two antidepressant drugs.

DESIGN OF STUDY

Cross-sectional survey.

SETTING

General practices, England.

METHOD

Six hundred and one trial participants were surveyed about their reasons for, and experience of, participating.

RESULTS

The questionnaire was completed by 252/601 (42%) participants. The most influential factors determining participation were: wanting to help others with depression (94%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 90 to 97%) of responders rated this as 'important' or 'very important'); friendly researchers (94%, 95% CI = 90 to 96%); and interest in the research (88%, 95% CI = 83 to 91%). Most were glad they took part and would consider participating in future research. Ninety-six per cent (95% CI = 92 to 98%) reported that their confidence in their GP had increased or remained unchanged since referral. Qualitative analysis of free-text responses indicated that patients found participation beneficial and liked: being altruistic, doing something positive, feeling supported by the researchers, and having time to talk. Many gained understanding of their depression and valued feedback on their progress. A minority reported negative views, which commonly related to taking antidepressants, and answering questionnaires.

CONCLUSION

GPs have a vital role in facilitating patient involvement in research but report barriers to referring depressed patients to RCTs. However, this data suggests that patients are willing to participate and many find this beneficial. Understanding attitudes to participation in mental health research is a crucial step in designing trials that are more acceptable to patients and GPs. This will strengthen the evidence for therapeutic approaches in primary care.