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

Comparative Efficacy of Dopamine Partial Agonists by Doses for Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Model-Based Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The augmentative antidepressant effects of dopamine partial agonists (aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, and cariprazine) for treatment-resistant depression have been compared in a previous network meta-analysis. However, the comparative efficacy of the dose-responses of these drugs remains unclear. Therefore, we aimed to estimate the dose-response relationships and compare the effects of each dopamine partial agonist doses.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, CINHAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases until January 1, 2023. Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials evaluating aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, and cariprazine for treatment-resistant depression were included. A random-effect dose-response model-based network meta-analysis was conducted. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023393035).

RESULTS

The maximum effective doses were 5.5 mg for aripiprazole, 1.6 mg for brexpiprazole, and 1.5 mg for cariprazine, respectively. Although all doses of the 3 drugs were significantly more effective than placebo, aripiprazole ranging from 5.5 to 12.5 mg was significantly more effective than brexpiprazole 0.5 mg and cariprazine ranging from 0.5 to 1 mg. Moreover, aripiprazole ranging from 7.5 to 12.5 mg was significantly more effective than all doses of cariprazine. In addition, brexpiprazole ranging from 1 to 3 mg was significantly more effective than cariprazine 0.5 mg and brexpiprazole ranging from 1.6 to 2.5 mg was significantly superior to cariprazine 1 mg. There were no doses at which brexpiprazole overcame aripiprazole, and cariprazine overcame aripiprazole or brexpiprazole.

CONCLUSIONS

Aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, and cariprazine may be effective in treatment-resistant depression in that order, with the maximum effective doses at 5.5 mg, 1.6 mg, and 1.5 mg, respectively.

Towards Outcome-Driven Patient Subgroups: A Machine Learning Analysis Across Six Depression Treatment Studies

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a heterogeneous condition; multiple underlying neurobiological and behavioral substrates are associated with treatment response variability. Understanding the sources of this variability and predicting outcomes has been elusive. Machine learning (ML) shows promise in predicting treatment response in MDD, but its application is limited by challenges to the clinical interpretability of ML models, and clinicians often lack confidence in model results. In order to improve the interpretability of ML models in clinical practice, our goal was to demonstrate the derivation of treatment-relevant patient profiles comprised of clinical and demographic information using a novel ML approach.

METHODS

We analyzed data from six clinical trials of pharmacological treatment for depression (total n = 5438) using the Differential Prototypes Neural Network (DPNN), a ML model that derives patient prototypes which can be used to derive treatment-relevant patient clusters while learning to generate probabilities for differential treatment response. A model classifying remission and outputting individual remission probabilities for five first-line monotherapies and three combination treatments was trained using clinical and demographic data. Prototypes were evaluated for interpretability by assessing differences in feature distributions (e.g. age, sex, symptom severity) and treatment-specific outcomes.

RESULTS

A 3-prototype model achieved an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.66 and an expected absolute improvement in remission rate for those receiving the best predicted treatment of 6.5% (relative improvement of 15.6%) compared to the population remission rate. We identified three treatment-relevant patient clusters. Cluster A patients tended to be younger, to have increased levels of fatigue, and more severe symptoms. Cluster B patients tended to be older, female, have less severe symptoms, and the highest remission rates. Cluster C patients had more severe symptoms, lower remission rates, more psychomotor agitation, more intense suicidal ideation, and more somatic genital symptoms.

CONCLUSION

It is possible to produce novel treatment-relevant patient profiles using ML models; doing so may improve interpretability of ML models and the quality of precision medicine treatments for MDD.

Sertraline with desvenlafaxine and sertraline with mirtazapine as treatment initiation in MDD patients with moderate to severe depression and effect on inflammatory markers

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the effect of sertraline with desvenlafaxine and sertraline with mirtazapine on HAM-D score and inflammatory markers (IL-6 and TNF-α levels) in major depressive disorder.

METHODS

Patients (18-60 years) with MDD diagnosed by DSM-V criteria and HAM-D score 18 or more were included (n = 60). Group A patients (n = 30) received sertraline 50 mg/day and desvenlafaxine 50 mg/day. Group B patients (n = 30) received sertraline 50 mg/day and mirtazapine 30 mg/day. All patients were followed up for 8 weeks for the evaluation of clinical efficacy, safety, serum IL-6, and TNF-α levels.

RESULTS

Our study showed a comparatively similar and statistically significant (p < 0.05) reduction in HAM-D score in both groups in the 4th and 8th week of the treatment. Both drug combinations significantly (p < 0.05) decreased serum IL-6 and TNF-α after 8 weeks of treatment.

CONCLUSION

The present study suggests that the combination therapy (as treatment initiation) with sertraline and desvenlafaxine, and sertraline with mirtazapine is effective and well tolerated in MDD patients with moderate to severe depression, and their therapeutic efficacy is accompanied by decreased inflammatory markers (serum IL-6 and TNF-α).

Clinical Trials Studying Suicide Risk Reduction: Who is Excluded From Participation

OBJECTIVE

The use of exclusion criteria in clinical trials can cause research participants to differ markedly from clinical populations, which negatively impacts generalizability of results. This study identifies and quantifies common and recurring exclusion criteria in clinical trials studying suicide risk reduction, and estimates their impact on eligibility among a clinical sample of adults in an emergency department with high suicide risk.

METHOD

Recent trials were identified by searching PubMed (terms suicide, efficacy, effectiveness, limited to clinical trials in prior 5 years). Common exclusion criteria were identified using Qualitative Content Analysis. A retrospective chart review examined a one-month sample of all adults receiving psychiatric evaluation in a large urban academic emergency department.

RESULTS

The search yielded 27 unique clinical trials studying suicide risk reduction as a primary or secondary outcome. After research fundamentals (e.g. informed consent, language fluency), the most common exclusion criteria involved psychosis (77.8%), cognitive problems (66.7%), and substance use (63.0%). In the clinical sample of adults with high suicide risk (N = 232), psychosis exclusions would exclude 53.0% of patients and substance use exclusions would exclude 67.2% of patients. Overall, 5.6% of emergency psychiatry patients would be eligible for clinical trials that use common exclusion criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Recent clinical trials studying suicide risk reduction have low generalizability to emergency psychiatry patients with high suicide risk. Trials enrolling persons with psychosis and substance use in particular are needed to improve generalizability to this clinical population.

Association between antidepressant use during pregnancy and miscarriage: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Literature surrounding the association between antidepressant use during pregnancy and miscarriage is conflicting. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies among pregnant women regarding the association between exposure to antidepressants during pregnancy and the risk of miscarriage, compared with pregnant women not exposed to antidepressants.

DESIGN

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of non-randomised studies.

DATA SOURCES

We searched Medline, Embase and PsychINFO up to 6 August 2023.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA AND OUTCOMES

Case-control, cohort and cross-sectional study designs were selected if they compared individuals exposed to any antidepressant class during pregnancy to comparator groups of either no antidepressant use or an alternate antidepressant.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Effect estimates were extracted from selected studies and pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool, and heterogeneity assessed using the I2 statistic. Subgroup analyses were used to explore antidepressant classes and the impact of confounding by indication.

RESULTS

1800 records were identified from the search, of which 29 were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The total sample included 5 671 135 individuals. Antidepressant users initially appeared to have a higher risk of miscarriage compared with unexposed individuals from the general population (summary effect estimate: 1.24, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.31, I2=69.2%; number of studies (n)=29). However, the summary estimate decreased when comparing against unexposed individuals with maternal depression (1.16, 1.04 to 1.31; I2=58.6%; n=6), suggesting confounding by indication may be driving the association. 22 studies suffered from serious RoB, and only two of the 29 studies were deemed at moderate RoB.

CONCLUSIONS

After accounting for maternal depression, there is little evidence of any association between antidepressant use during pregnancy and miscarriage. Instead, the results indicate the biasing impact of confounding by indication.

[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.

Promising new pharmacological targets for depression: The search for efficacy

Pharmacological treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) still relies on the use of serotonergic drugs, despite their limited efficacy. A few mechanistically new drugs have been developed in recent years, but many fail in clinical trials. Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain MDD pathophysiology, indicating that physiological processes such as neuroplasticity, circadian rhythms, and metabolism are potential targets. Here, we review the current state of pharmacological treatments for MDD, as well as the preclinical and clinical evidence for an antidepressant effect of molecules that target non-serotonergic systems. We offer some insights into the challenges facing the development of new antidepressant drugs, and the prospect of finding more effectiveness for each target discussed.

Patterns of psychotropic drug use in veterans with epilepsy: Do drug interactions matter?

RATIONALE

Patients with epilepsy are likely to suffer from psychiatric comorbidities, including depression and anxiety. They often require treatment with multiple psychotropic drugs (PDs). While it is clear that CYP-inducing ASMs (EIASMs) can increase the oral clearance of multiple medications (thus lowering systemic exposure), it is less clear that all PK interactions are clinically meaningful (e.g. lower efficacy). As a first step in addressing this issue, this study sought to quantify the potential impact of ASM choice, whether EIASM or non-inducer (NIASM), on surrogate markers of suggestive of clinical use, including resultant antidepressant (AD) or antipsychotic (AP) dose, frequency of combination use of AD & AP, and number of multiple drug switches of PDs. Our hypothesis is that because of PK interactions, EIAED treatment would be associated with higher psychotropic drug doses, more frequent Rx adjustments and poly psychotropic comedication, all in order to optimize therapeutic response.

METHODS

Using VA pharmacy and national encounter databases, veterans with epilepsy were identified based on having a seizure diagnosis and being prescribed concomitantly an ASM and a psychotropic drug for at least 365 days between 10/1/2010 and 9/30/2014. Patients for whom psychotropic drugs were prescribed any time between beginning and end prescriptions dates of ASMs were considered. Among those, patients receiving both an EIASM + NEIASM concomitantly were categorized with the EIASM group. Patients were evaluated for AD only, AP only and both (AD & AP). To compute average drug doses per day, averages for each patient were computed and averaged again. Multiple drug switches were defined to be for patients who had been prescribed more than three psychotropic drugs during the observation period. Pearson's Chi-Square test was used to compare relative proportions of AD, AP and AD + AP in both groups.

RESULTS

In all, 16,188 patients were identified (57.0% on EIASM, 43.0% on NIASM) with a mean age of 58.7 years (91.2% male). A larger proportion of patients on EIASM received mono treatment with any psychotropic drug, as compared to NIASM (42.0% vs 36.1%). Among all, 59.6% received AD only, 6.5% received AP only, and 33.8% received both concurrently. Of EIASM, 62.5% were on AD, 5.9% on AP, and 31.7% on both AP & AD. For NIASM, 55.9% received AD, 7.4% AP, and 36.7% on AD & AP.Chi-square showed that the distribution of PD was statistically different between EIASM and NIASM groups. Z tests showed that each difference (AD, AP and both) in proportions was statistically significant (p values (4 tests, one Chi-square, 3 Z tests <0.001) between EIASM vs NIASM. Interestingly, mean doses of AD or AP did not appear to differ between ASM groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Concurrent psychotropic drug use is quite common in the VA population with epilepsy, and a large number of patients still receive enzyme-inducing ASMs that may complicate other medical therapies. Interestingly, in seeming contradiction to our hypothesis, mean daily doses of either AD or AP did not appear to differ between inducers vs non-inducers. Similarly, use of polytherapy, and/or multiple trials of various psychotropic drugs did not appear increased in the CYP-induced group. In fact, combination therapy of AD + AP was higher in NIASM than EIASM. These data suggest that perhaps these types of PK interactions may not in fact result in meaningful clinical differences. Since the present analyses did not include clinical psychiatric measures, future analyses examining direct clinical outcomes are clearly warranted.

Measuring the performance of prediction models to personalize treatment choice

When data are available from individual patients receiving either a treatment or a control intervention in a randomized trial, various statistical and machine learning methods can be used to develop models for predicting future outcomes under the two conditions, and thus to predict treatment effect at the patient level. These predictions can subsequently guide personalized treatment choices. Although several methods for validating prediction models are available, little attention has been given to measuring the performance of predictions of personalized treatment effect. In this article, we propose a range of measures that can be used to this end. We start by defining two dimensions of model accuracy for treatment effects, for a single outcome: discrimination for benefit and calibration for benefit. We then amalgamate these two dimensions into an additional concept, decision accuracy, which quantifies the model's ability to identify patients for whom the benefit from treatment exceeds a given threshold. Subsequently, we propose a series of performance measures related to these dimensions and discuss estimating procedures, focusing on randomized data. Our methods are applicable for continuous or binary outcomes, for any type of prediction model, as long as it uses baseline covariates to predict outcomes under treatment and control. We illustrate all methods using two simulated datasets and a real dataset from a trial in depression. We implement all methods in the R package predieval. Results suggest that the proposed measures can be useful in evaluating and comparing the performance of competing models in predicting individualized treatment effect.

Beyond monoamines: II. Novel applications for PET imaging in psychiatric disorders

Early applications of positron emission tomography (PET) in psychiatry sought to identify derangements of cerebral blood flow and metabolism. The need for more specific neurochemical imaging probes was soon evident, and these probes initially targeted the sites of action of neuroleptic (dopamine D₂ receptors) and psychoactive (serotonin receptors) drugs. For nearly 30 years, the centrality of monoamine dysfunction in psychiatric disorders drove the development of an armamentarium of monoaminergic PET radiopharmaceuticals and imaging methodologies. However, continued investments in monoamine-enhancing drug development realized only modest gains in efficacy and tolerability. As patent protection for many widely prescribed and profitable psychiatric drugs lapsed, drug development pipelines shifted away from monoamines in search of novel targets with the promises of improved efficacy, or abandoned altogether. Over this period, PET radiopharmaceutical development activities closely parallelled drug development priorities, resulting in the development of new PET imaging agents for non-monoamine targets. In part two of this review, we survey clinical research studies using the novel targets and radiotracers described in part one across major psychiatric application areas such as substance use disorders, anxiety disorders, eating disorders, personality disorders, mood disorders, and schizophrenia. Important limitations of the studies described are discussed, as well as key methodologic issues, challenges to the field, and the status of clinical trials seeking to exploit these targets for novel therapeutics.

Nonpharmacologic and Pharmacologic Treatments of Adult Patients With Major Depressive Disorder: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis for a Clinical Guideline by the American College of Physicians

BACKGROUND

Primary care patients and clinicians may prefer alternative options to second-generation antidepressants for major depressive disorder (MDD).

PURPOSE

To compare the benefits and harms of nonpharmacologic treatments with second-generation antidepressants as first-step interventions for acute MDD, and to compare second-step treatment strategies for patients who did not achieve remission after an initial attempt with antidepressants.

DATA SOURCES

English-language studies from several electronic databases from 1 January 1990 to 8 August 2022, trial registries, gray literature databases, and reference lists to identify unpublished research.

STUDY SELECTION

2 investigators independently selected randomized trials of at least 6 weeks' duration.

DATA EXTRACTION

Reviewers abstracted data about study design and conduct, participants, interventions, and outcomes. They dually rated the risk of bias of studies and the certainty of evidence for outcomes of interest.

DATA SYNTHESIS

65 randomized trials met the inclusion criteria; eligible data from nonrandomized studies were not found. Meta-analyses and network meta-analyses indicated similar benefits of most nonpharmacologic treatments and antidepressants as first-step treatments. Antidepressants had higher risks for discontinuation because of adverse events than most other treatments. For second-step therapies, different switching and augmentation strategies provided similar symptomatic relief. The certainty of evidence for most comparisons is low; findings should be interpreted cautiously.

LIMITATIONS

Many studies had methodological limitations or dosing inequalities; publication bias might have affected some comparisons. In some cases, conclusions could not be drawn because of insufficient evidence.

CONCLUSION

Although benefits seem to be similar among first- and second-step MDD treatments, the certainty of evidence is low for most comparisons. Clinicians and patients should focus on options with the most reliable evidence and take adverse event profiles and patient preferences into consideration.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42020204703).

Nonpharmacologic and Pharmacologic Treatments of Adults in the Acute Phase of Major Depressive Disorder: A Living Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians

DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this guideline from the American College of Physicians (ACP) is to present updated clinical recommendations on nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic interventions as initial and second-line treatments during the acute phase of a major depressive disorder (MDD) episode, based on the best available evidence on the comparative benefits and harms, consideration of patient values and preferences, and cost.

METHODS

The ACP Clinical Guidelines Committee based these recommendations on an updated systematic review of the evidence.

AUDIENCE AND PATIENT POPULATION

The audience for this guideline includes clinicians caring for adult patients in the acute phase of MDD in ambulatory care. The patient population includes adults in the acute phase of MDD.

RECOMMENDATION 1A

ACP recommends monotherapy with either cognitive behavioral therapy or a second-generation antidepressant as initial treatment in patients in the acute phase of moderate to severe major depressive disorder (strong recommendation; moderate-certainty evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 1B

ACP suggests combination therapy with cognitive behavioral therapy and a second-generation antidepressant as initial treatment in patients in the acute phase of moderate to severe major depressive disorder (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence). The informed decision on the options of monotherapy with cognitive behavioral therapy versus second-generation antidepressants or combination therapy should be personalized and based on discussion of potential treatment benefits, harms, adverse effect profiles, cost, feasibility, patients' specific symptoms (such as insomnia, hypersomnia, or fluctuation in appetite), comorbidities, concomitant medication use, and patient preferences.

RECOMMENDATION 2

ACP suggests monotherapy with cognitive behavioral therapy as initial treatment in patients in the acute phase of mild major depressive disorder (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 3

ACP suggests one of the following options for patients in the acute phase of moderate to severe major depressive disorder who did not respond to initial treatment with an adequate dose of a second-generation antidepressant: • Switching to or augmenting with cognitive behavioral therapy (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence) • Switching to a different second-generation antidepressant or augmenting with a second pharmacologic treatment (see Clinical Considerations) (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence) The informed decision on the options should be personalized and based on discussion of potential treatment benefits, harms, adverse effect profiles, cost, feasibility, patients' specific symptoms (such as insomnia, hypersomnia, or fluctuation in appetite), comorbidities, concomitant medication use, and patient preferences.

Clinical Guideline (CANMAT 2016) Discordance of Medications for Patients with Major Depressive Disorder in China

Objective

This survey aims to explore the current medical treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in China and match its degree with Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT).

Methods

A total of 3275 patients were recruited from 16 mental health centers and 16 general hospitals in China. Descriptive statistics presented the total number and percentage of drugs, as well as all kinds of treatments.

Results

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) accounted for the largest proportion (57.2%), followed by serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) (22.8%) and mirtazapine (7.0%) in the first therapy, while that of SNRIs (53.9%) followed by SSRIs (39.2%) and mirtazapine (9.8%) in the follow-up therapy. An average of 1.85 medications was administered to each MDD patient.

Conclusion

SSRIs were the first choice in the first therapy, while the proportion of those drugs decreased during the follow-up therapy and were replaced by SNRIs. Plenty of combined pharmacotherapies were directly selected as the first trial of patients, which was inconsistent with guideline recommendations.

Association between peripheral inflammation and free-water imaging in Major Depressive Disorder before and after ketamine treatment - A pilot study

BACKGROUND

Alterations in the peripheral inflammatory profile and white matter (WM) deterioration are frequent in Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). The present study applies free-water imaging to investigate the relationship between altered peripheral inflammation and WM microstructure and their predictive value in determining response to ketamine treatment in MDD.

METHODS

Ten individuals with MDD underwent diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and a blood-draw before and 24 h after ketamine infusion. We utilized MANCOVAs and ANCOVAs to compare tissue-specific fractional anisotropy (FAT) and free-water (FW) of the forceps and cingulum, and the ratio of pro-inflammatory interleukin(IL)-8/anti-inflammatory IL-10 between individuals with MDD and 15 healthy controls at baseline. Next, we compared all baseline measures between ketamine responders (6) and non-responders (4) and analyzed changes in imaging and blood data after ketamine infusion.

RESULTS

The MDD group exhibited an increased IL-8/IL-10 ratio compared to controls at baseline (p = .040), which positively correlated with average FW across regions of interest (p = .013). Ketamine responders demonstrated higher baseline FAT in the left cingulum than non-responders (p = .023). Ketamine infusion did not influence WM microstructure but decreased the IL-8/IL-10 ratio (p = .043).

LIMITATIONS

The small sample size and short follow-up period limit the conclusion regarding the longer-term effects of ketamine in MDD.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study provides evidence for the role of inflammation in MDD by illustrating an association between peripheral inflammation and WM microstructure. Additionally, we demonstrate that free-water diffusion-weighted imaging might be a valuable tool to determine which individuals with MDD benefit from the anti-inflammatory mediated effects of ketamine treatment.

Optimal dose of brexpiprazole for augmentation therapy of antidepressant-refractory depression: A systematic review and dose-effect meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Brexpiprazole augmentation is an effective treatment strategy for antidepressant-refractory depression, but its optimal dosage remains unclear.

AIMS

To find the optimal dosage of brexpiprazole as augmentation of other antidepressants.

METHODS

We searched multiple electronic databases (from inception to September 16th, 2021) to identify double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled fixed-dose trials evaluating brexpiprazole augmentation therapy in adults (≥18 years old, both genders) with major depressive disorder not adequately responding to one or more antidepressant treatment. Our outcomes of interest at 8 weeks (range 4-12 weeks) were efficacy (treatment response defined as 50% or greater reduction in depression severity), tolerability (dropouts due to adverse effects) and acceptability (dropouts for any reason). We performed a random-effects, one-stage dose-effect meta-analysis with restricted cubic splines.

RESULTS

Six studies met the inclusion criteria, including 1671 participants in total. The dose-efficacy curve showed an increase up to doses around 2 mg (odds ratio [OR] 1.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-2.06) and then a decreasing trend through the higher licensed dose up to 3 mg (OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.95-2.08). The shape of the dose-tolerability curve was comparable to that of the efficacy and the dose-acceptability curve showed a monotonic increasing trend but both had wide confidence bands.

CONCLUSIONS

One to two milligrams of brexpiprazole as augmentation treatment may achieve an optimal balance between efficacy, tolerability, and acceptability in the acute treatment of antidepressant-refractory depression. However, the small number of included studies limit the reliability of the results. Further research is required to validate the findings.

Optimal dose of aripiprazole for augmentation therapy of antidepressant-refractory depression: preliminary findings based on a systematic review and dose-effect meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Aripiprazole augmentation is proven effective for antidepressant-refractory depression, but its licensed dose range is wide and optimal dosage remains unclear.

AIMS

To find the optimal dosage of aripiprazole augmentation.

METHOD

Multiple electronic databases were searched (from inception to 16 February 2021) to identify all assessor-masked randomised controlled trials evaluating aripiprazole augmentation therapy in adults (≥18 years old, both genders) with major depressive disorder showing inadequate response to at least one antidepressant treatment. A random-effects, one-stage dose-effect meta-analysis with restricted cubic splines was conducted. Outcomes were efficacy (treatment response: ≥50% reduction in depression severity), tolerability (drop-out due to adverse effects) and acceptability (drop-out for any reason) after 8 weeks of treatment (range 4-12 weeks).

RESULTS

Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. All were individually randomised, placebo-controlled, multi-centre, parallel studies including 2625 participants in total. The maximum target dose-efficacy curve showed an increase up to doses between 2 mg (odds ratio OR = 1.46, 95% CI 1.15-1.85) and 5 mg (OR = 1.93, 95% CI 1.33-2.81), and then a non-increasing trend through the higher licensed doses up to 20 mg (OR = 1.90, 95% CI 1.52-2.37). Tolerability showed a similar trend with greater uncertainty. Acceptability showed no significant difference through the examined dose range. Certainty of evidence was low to moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose aripiprazole as augmentation treatment might achieve the optimal balance between efficacy, tolerability and acceptability in the acute treatment of antidepressant-refractory depression. However, the small number of included studies and the overall moderate to high risk of bias seriously compromise the reliability of the results. Further research is required to investigate the benefits of low versus high dose.

Designing clinically useful psychopharmacological trials: challenges and ways forward

The clinical guidelines that underpin the use of drugs for mental disorders are informed by evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). RCTs are performed to obtain marketing authorisation from regulators. The methods used in these RCTs could be appropriate for early phases of drug development because they identify drugs with important harms and drugs that are efficacious for specific health problems and populations. RCTs done before marketing authorisation do not tend to address clinical questions that concern the effectiveness of a drug in heterogeneous and comorbid populations, the optimisation of drug sequencing and discontinuation, or the comparative benefits and harms of different drugs that could be used for the same health problem. This Review proposes an overview of some shortcomings of RCTs, at an individual level and at the whole portfolio level, and identifies some methods in planning, conducting, and carrying out analyses in RCTs that could enhance their ability to support therapeutic decisions. These suggestions include: identifying patient-important questions to be investigated by psychopharmacological RCTs; embedding pragmatic RCTs within clinical practice to improve generalisability to target populations; collecting evidence about drugs in overlooked populations; developing methods to facilitate the recruitment of patients with mental disorders and to reduce the number of patients who drop out, using specific methods; using core outcome sets to standardise the assessment of benefits and harms; and recording systematically serious objective outcomes, such as suicide or hospitalisation, to be evaluated in meta-analyses. This work is a call to address questions relevant to patients using diverse design of RCTs, thus contributing to the development of a patient-centred, evidence-based psychiatry.

Depression in Sub-Saharan Africa

Mood disorders can be considered among the most common and debilitating mental disorders. Major depression, as an example of mood disorders, is known to severely reduce the quality of life as well as psychosocial functioning of those affected. Its impact on the burden of disease worldwide has been enormous, with the World Health Organisation projecting depression to be the leading cause of mental illness by 2030. Despite several studies on the subject, little has been done to contextualise the condition in Africa, coupled with the fact that there is still much to be understood on the subject. This review attempts to shed more light on the prevalence of depression in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), its pathophysiology, risk factors, diagnosis and the experimental models available to study depression within the sub-region. It also evaluates the contribution of the sub-region to the global research output of depression as well as bottlenecks associated with full exploitation of the sub region's resources to manage the disorder.

Efficacy and acceptability of next step treatment strategies in adults with treatment-resistant major depressive disorder: protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

For major depression, a one-size-fits-all treatment does not exist. Patients enter a 'trial-and-change' algorithm in which effective therapies are subsequently applied. Unfortunately, an empirically based order of treatments has not yet been determined. There is a magnitude of different treatment strategies while clinical trials only compare a small number of these. Network meta-analyses (NMA) might offer a solution, but so far have been limited in scope and did not account for possible differences in population characteristics that arise with increasing levels of treatment-resistance, potentially violating the transitivity assumption. We; therefore, present a protocol for a systematic review and NMA aiming at summarising and ranking treatments for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) while covering a broad range of therapeutic options and accounting for possible differences in population characteristics at increasing levels of treatment-resistance.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Randomised controlled trials will be included that compared next-step pharmacological, neuromodulation or psychological treatments for treatment-resistant depression (TRD; ie, failure to respond to ≥1 adequate antidepressant drug trial(s) in the current episode) to each other or to a control condition. Primary outcomes will be the proportion of patients who responded to (efficacy) and dropped out of (acceptability) the allocated treatment. A random effects NMA will be conducted, synthesising the evidence for each outcome and determining the differential efficacy of treatments. Heterogeneity in treatment nodes will be reduced by considering alternative geometries of the network structure and by conducting a meta-regression examining different levels of TRD. Local and global methods will be applied to evaluate consistency. The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool, Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework will be used to assess risk of bias and certainty.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This review does not require ethical approval.

Combining Antidepressants vs Antidepressant Monotherapy for Treatment of Patients With Acute Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Combining antidepressants is frequently done in the treatment of acute depression, but studies have yielded conflicting results.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing efficacy and tolerability of combination therapy. Combinations using presynaptic α2-autoreceptor antagonists or bupropion were investigated separately.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched from each database inception through January 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing combinations of antidepressants with antidepressant monotherapy in adult patients with acute depression were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Following guidelines from Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and recommendations from the Cochrane Handbook, 2 reviewers independently performed a literature search, study selection, data extraction, and evaluation of risk of bias. Data were pooled in random-effects analyses.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary outcome was efficacy measured as standardized mean difference (SMD); secondary outcomes were response, remission, change from baseline in rating scale scores, number of dropouts, and number of dropouts due to adverse events.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine RCTs including 6751 patients were eligible. Combination treatment was statistically significantly associated with superior treatment outcomes relative to monotherapy (SMD = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.19-0.44). Combining a reuptake inhibitor with an antagonist of presynaptic α2-autoreceptors was superior to other combinations (SMD = 0.37; 95% CI, 0.19-0.55). Bupropion combinations were not superior to monotherapy (SMD = 0.10; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.27). Numbers of dropouts and dropouts due to adverse events did not differ between treatments. Studies were heterogeneous, and there was indication of publication bias (Egger test result was positive; P = .007, df = 36), but results remained robust across prespecified secondary outcomes and sensitivity and subgroup analyses, including analyses restricted to studies with low risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this meta-analysis of RCTs comparing combinations of antidepressants with antidepressant monotherapy, combining antidepressants was associated with superior treatment outcomes but not with more patients dropping out of treatment. Combinations using an antagonist of presynaptic α2-autoreceptors may be preferable and may be applied as a first-line treatment in severe cases of depression and for patients considered nonresponders.

Impact of CYP2C19 metaboliser status on SSRI response: a retrospective study of 9500 participants of the Australian Genetics of Depression Study

Background

Variation within the CYP2C19 gene has been linked to differential metabolism of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Pharmacogenetic recommendations based on the effect of CYP2C19 variants have been made available and are used increasingly by clinical practitioners. Nonetheless, the underlying assumption linking differential metabolism to efficacy or adverse side effects remains understudied. Here, we aim to fill this gap by studying CYP2C19 polymorphisms and inferred metabolism and patient-reported antidepressant response in a sample of 9531 Australian adults who have taken SSRIs.

Methods

Metaboliser status was inferred for participants based on CYP2C19 alleles. Primary analysis consisted of assessing differences in treatment efficacy and tolerability between normal (reference) and: ultrarapid, rapid, intermediate and poor metabolisers.

Results

Across medications, poor metabolisers reported a higher efficacy, whereas rapid metabolisers reported higher tolerability. When stratified by drug, associations between metaboliser status and efficacy did not survive multiple testing correction. Intermediate metabolisers were at greater odds of reporting any side effect for sertraline and higher number of side effects across medications and for sertraline.

Conclusions

The effects between metaboliser status and treatment efficacy, tolerability and side effects were in the expected direction. Our power analysis suggests we would detect moderate to large effects, at least nominally. Reduced power may also be explained by heterogeneity in antidepressant dosages or concomitant medications, which we did not measure. The fact that we identify slower metabolisers to be at higher risk of side effects even without adjusting for clinical titration, and the nominally significant associations consistent with the expected metabolic effects provide new evidence for the link between CYP2C19 metabolism and SSRI response. Nonetheless, longitudinal and interventional designs such as randomized clinical trials that stratify by metaboliser status are necessary to establish the effects of CYP2C19 metabolism on SSRI treatment efficacy or adverse effects.

Sex Differences in the Behavioral, Molecular, and Structural Effects of Ketamine Treatment in Depression

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a common psychiatric illness that manifests in sex-influenced ways. Men and women may experience depression differently and also respond to various antidepressant treatments in sex-influenced ways. Ketamine, which is now being used as a rapid-acting antidepressant, is likely the same. To date, the majority of studies investigating treatment outcomes in MDD do not disaggregate the findings in males and females, and this is also true for ketamine. This review aims to highlight that gap by exploring pre-clinical data-at a behavioral, molecular, and structural level-and recent clinical trials. Sex hormones, particularly estrogen and progesterone, influence the response at all levels examined, and sex is therefore a critical factor to examine when looking at ketamine response. Taken together, the data show females are more sensitive to ketamine than males, and it might be possible to monitor the phase of the menstrual cycle to mitigate some risks associated with the use of ketamine for females with MDD. Based on the studies reviewed in this article, we suggest that ketamine should be administered adhering to sex-specific considerations.

The safety and efficacy of botulinum toxin A on the treatment of depression

OBJECTIVES

Effective strategy for the treatment of depression is limited. This study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of botulinum toxin A (BoNT/A) in the treatment of depression.

METHODS

Seventy-six patients were assigned to the BoNT/A group (n = 52) and sertraline control group (n = 24). For the BoNT/A group, BoNT/A was injected into the frowning muscle, depressor muscle, occipital frontalis muscle, lateral canthus, and bilateral temporal region at 20 sites. Five units per site and a total of 100 units of BoNT/A were given. Patients in the sertraline control group were medicated with sertraline 50-200 mg (114.58 ± 52.08 mg) per day. Depression was assessed by the 17-item Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD-17), 14-item Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA-14), Self-rating Depression Scale (SDS), and Self-rating Anxiety Scale (SAS). All participants were followed up for 12 weeks.

RESULTS

Scores of HAMD, HAMA, SDS, and SAS decreased significantly in both BoNT/A and sertraline groups after treatment for 12 weeks. Overall, there were no differences in decreased magnitude between the two groups (p > .05). The HAMA, SDS, and SAS results showed that the onset time of BoNT/A was earlier than that of sertraline. Side effects rates were 15.38% for BoNT/A and 33.33% for sertraline.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated significant antidepressant effects of BoNT/A. The efficacy of BoNT/A was comparable with established antidepressant sertraline. The onset time of BoNT/A was earlier than sertraline, and the proportion of side effects was less than sertraline. Therefore, BoNT/A could be a safe and effective option for the treatment of depression.

Perilla Oil and Bifidobacterium for Alleviating Fear of Cancer Recurrence in Breast Cancer Survivors: Study Protocol for a Three-Arm Phase II Randomized Controlled Study (POB Study)

The fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is the most common and most severe unmet need among cancer survivors. Safe treatments for the FCR that are easily disseminated are greatly needed. Our primary aim is a preliminary evaluation of the efficacy and effect size of perilla oil, which is rich in omega-3 fatty acids, and Bifidobacterium, a probiotic, on FCR in breast cancer survivors after the completion of chemotherapy. This study has been planned as an exploratory clinical study (phase II) and will be conducted as a three-arm, 12-week parallel group, masked-rater randomized controlled trial. Fifteen participants will be randomized with 1:1:1 allocation to receive Bifidobacterium plus perilla oil, Bifidobacterium alone, or no intervention (control). Interventions will end within 12 weeks after the random allocation of each participant. The participants will be outpatients with invasive breast cancer aged 20 years or older whose chemotherapy was completed at least 6 months before registration; hormone therapy may be ongoing. The primary outcome will be severity of FCR at 12 weeks assessed by masked raters using the 4-item Concerns about Recurrence Scale concerning overall fear of recurrence. The study protocol for the current study is registered in the Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCTs031200029).

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.

Acceptability of escitalopram versus duloxetine in outpatients with depression who did not respond to initial second-generation antidepressants: A randomized, parallel-group, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUNDS

Antidepressants are widely used to treat major depressive disorder. First-line treatments with antidepressants are only successful in one-third of patients; however, evidence from randomized controlled trials on second-line treatments is limited. Moreover, recently acceptability is suggested to be a good indicator of overall treatment success.

METHODS

This is a multi-center two-arm, three-phased randomized controlled trial performed in Japan from December 2013 to March 2017 comparing the acceptability of escitalopram and duloxetine as a second-line drug. Patients, who failed to respond to antidepressants such as sertraline, paroxetine, fluvoxamine, milnacipran or mirtazapine for at least 3 weeks, were randomized to either escitalopram (Group A) or duloxetine (Group B) in Step 1 (8 weeks). In Step 2 (8 weeks), the drug was switched to the other if the first drug failed. The discontinuation rate at the end of Step 1 was the primary endpoint and non-inferiority of escitalopram vs duloxetine was tested. In addition, change in clinical measures from baseline were also assessed at the end of Step 1, 2 and up to 52 weeks.

RESULTS

At the end of Step 1, Group A (n = 82) was significantly superior to Group B (n = 78) in discontinuation rate (4.9% to 19.2%, P = 0.007). The change in clinical indices from baseline were not different between the groups at either timepoint.

LIMITATIONS

As the major reason for discontinuation in Group B was the "withdrawal of consent" the concrete reason could not be verified.

CONCLUSIONS

As a second-line treatment drug, escitalopram was suggested to be non-inferior to duloxetine in acceptability.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMINCTR(UMIN000012367), registered on December 1st, 2013 and last updated on April 4th, 2017.

The use of sequential pharmacotherapy for the treatment of acute major depression: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is a chronic, relapsing, and remitting disorder affecting over 250 million persons each year worldwide. More than 50% of the patients do not respond to their initial antidepressant treatment and may benefit from sequential pharmacotherapy for the acute treatment of their MDD. Although guidelines outline options for next-step treatments, there is a paucity of evidence to select specific second- or third-step treatments.

AREAS COVERED

This scoping review synthesizes and discusses available evidence for sequential pharmacotherapy for MDD. MEDLINE was searched from inception to 7 July 2020; 4490 studies were identified. We selected meta-analyses and reports on clinical trials that were judged to inform the sequential selection of pharmacotherapy for MDD.

EXPERT OPINION

Most relevant published trials are focused on, and support, the use of augmentation pharmacotherapy. There is also some support for other strategies such as combining or switching antidepressants. In the future, more studies need to directly compare these sequential options. To provide more personalized treatment within the framework of precision psychiatry, these studies should include an assessment of moderators and mediators ('mechanism') of antidepressant response.

Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor Pharmaco-Omics: Mechanisms and Prediction

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are a standard of care for the pharmacotherapy of patients suffering from Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). However, only one-half to two-thirds of MDD patients respond to SSRI therapy. Recently, a "multiple omics" research strategy was applied to identify genetic differences between patients who did and did not respond to SSRI therapy. As a first step, plasma metabolites were assayed using samples from the 803 patients in the PGRN-AMPS SSRI MDD trial. The metabolomics data were then used to "inform" genomics by performing a genome-wide association study (GWAS) for plasma concentrations of the metabolite most highly associated with clinical response, serotonin (5-HT). Two genome-wide or near genome-wide significant single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) signals were identified, one that mapped near the TSPAN5 gene and another across the ERICH3 gene, both genes that are highly expressed in the brain. Knocking down TSPAN5 and ERICH3 resulted in decreased 5-HT concentrations in neuroblastoma cell culture media and decreased expression of enzymes involved in 5-HT biosynthesis and metabolism. Functional genomic studies demonstrated that ERICH3 was involved in clathrin-mediated vesicle formation and TSPAN5 was an ethanol-responsive gene that may be a marker for response to acamprosate pharmacotherapy of alcohol use disorder (AUD), a neuropsychiatric disorder highly co-morbid with MDD. In parallel studies, kynurenine was the plasma metabolite most highly associated with MDD symptom severity and application of a metabolomics-informed pharmacogenomics approach identified DEFB1 and AHR as genes associated with variation in plasma kynurenine levels. Both genes also contributed to kynurenine-related inflammatory pathways. Finally, a multiply replicated predictive algorithm for SSRI clinical response with a balanced predictive accuracy of 76% (compared with 56% for clinical data alone) was developed by including the SNPs in TSPAN5, ERICH3, DEFB1 and AHR. In summary, application of a multiple omics research strategy that used metabolomics to inform genomics, followed by functional genomic studies, identified novel genes that influenced monoamine biology and made it possible to develop a predictive algorithm for SSRI clinical outcomes in MDD. A similar pharmaco-omic research strategy might be broadly applicable for the study of other neuropsychiatric diseases and their drug therapy.

The 2020 Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists clinical practice guidelines for mood disorders

OBJECTIVES

To provide advice and guidance regarding the management of mood disorders, derived from scientific evidence and supplemented by expert clinical consensus to formulate s that maximise clinical utility.

METHODS

Articles and information sourced from search engines including PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Google Scholar were supplemented by literature known to the mood disorders committee (e.g. books, book chapters and government reports) and from published depression and bipolar disorder guidelines. Relevant information was appraised and discussed in detail by members of the mood disorders committee, with a view to formulating and developing consensus-based recommendations and clinical guidance. The guidelines were subjected to rigorous consultation and external review involving: expert and clinical advisors, key stakeholders, professional bodies and specialist groups with interest in mood disorders.

RESULTS

The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists mood disorders clinical practice guidelines 2020 (MDcpg²⁰²⁰) provide up-to-date guidance regarding the management of mood disorders that is informed by evidence and clinical experience. The guideline is intended for clinical use by psychiatrists, psychologists, primary care physicians and others with an interest in mental health care.

CONCLUSION

The MDcpg²⁰²⁰ builds on the previous 2015 guidelines and maintains its joint focus on both depressive and bipolar disorders. It provides up-to-date recommendations and guidance within an evidence-based framework, supplemented by expert clinical consensus.

MOOD DISORDERS COMMITTEE

Gin S Malhi (Chair), Erica Bell, Darryl Bassett, Philip Boyce, Richard Bryant, Philip Hazell, Malcolm Hopwood, Bill Lyndon, Roger Mulder, Richard Porter, Ajeet B Singh and Greg Murray.

In search of a dose-response relationship in SSRIs-a systematic review, meta-analysis, and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Recent meta-analyses on dose-response relationships of SSRIs are largely based on indirect evidence. We analyzed RCTs directly comparing different SSRI doses.

METHOD

Systematic literature search for RCTs. Two raters independently screened articles and extracted data. Across SSRIs, doses defined as low, medium, and high doses, based on drug manufacturers' product monographs, were analyzed in pairwise random-effects meta-analyses and in a sensitivity network meta-analysis with regard to differences in antidepressive efficacy (primary outcome). We also analyzed all direct comparisons of different dosages of specific SSRIs. (Prospero CRD42018081031).

RESULTS

Out of 5333 articles screened, we included 33. Comparisons of dosage groups (low, medium, and high) resulted in only small and clinically non-significant differences for SSRIs as a group, the strongest relating to medium vs low doses (SMD: -0.15 [95%-CI: -0.28; -0.01) and not sustained in a sensitivity analysis. Among different doses of specific SSRIs, no statistically significant trend emerged for efficacy at higher doses, but 60 mg/day fluoxetine are statistically significantly inferior to 20 mg/day. Paroxetine results are inconclusive: 10 mg/day are inferior to higher doses, but 30 and 40 mg/day are inferior to 20 mg/day. Meaningful effects cannot be ruled out for certain drugs and dosages, often investigated in only one trial. Dropout rates increase with dose-particularly due to side effects. Network meta-analyses supported our findings.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no conclusive level I or level II evidence of a clinically meaningful dose-response relationship of SSRIs as a group or of single substances. High SSRI doses are not recommended as routine treatment.

Pretreatment Reward Sensitivity and Frontostriatal Resting-State Functional Connectivity Are Associated With Response to Bupropion After Sertraline Nonresponse

BACKGROUND

Standard guidelines recommend selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors as first-line antidepressants for adults with major depressive disorder, but success is limited and patients who fail to benefit are often switched to non-selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor agents. This study investigated whether brain- and behavior-based markers of reward processing might be associated with response to bupropion after sertraline nonresponse.

METHODS

In a two-stage, double-blinded clinical trial, 296 participants were randomized to receive 8 weeks of sertraline or placebo in stage 1. Individuals who responded continued on another 8-week course of the same intervention in stage 2, while sertraline and placebo nonresponders crossed over to bupropion and sertraline, respectively. Data from 241 participants were analyzed. The stage 2 sample comprised 87 patients with major depressive disorder who switched medication and 38 healthy control subjects. A total of 116 participants with major depressive disorder treated with sertraline in stage 1 served as an independent replication sample. The probabilistic reward task and resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging were administered at baseline.

RESULTS

Greater pretreatment reward sensitivity and higher resting-state functional connectivity between bilateral nucleus accumbens and rostral anterior cingulate cortex were associated with positive response to bupropion but not sertraline. Null findings for sertraline were replicated in the stage 1 sample.

CONCLUSIONS

Pretreatment reward sensitivity and frontostriatal connectivity may identify patients likely to benefit from bupropion following selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor failures. Results call for a prospective replication based on these biomarkers to advance clinical care.

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.

No benefit from flexible titration above minimum licensed dose in prescribing antidepressants for major depression: systematic review

BACKGROUND

In fixed-dose antidepressant trials, the lower range of the licensed dose achieves the optimal balance between efficacy and tolerability. Whether flexible upward titration while side-effects permit provides additional benefits is unknown.

METHODS

We did a systematic review of placebo-controlled randomized trials that examined selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), venlafaxine or mirtazapine in the acute treatment of major depression. Our primary outcome was response, defined as 50% or greater reduction in depression severity. Secondary outcomes included drop-outs due to adverse effects and drop-outs for any reason. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses to calculate the ratios of odds ratios (RORs) between trials comparing the flexible dose titrating above the minimum licensed dose against placebo and those comparing the fixed minimum licensed dose against placebo.

RESULTS

We included 123 published and unpublished randomized controlled trials (29 420 participants). There was no evidence supporting efficacy of the flexible dosing over the fixed low dose of SSRIs (ROR 0.96, 95% CI: 0.73 to 1.25), venlafaxine (1.24, 0.96 to 1.60) or mirtazapine (0.77, 0.33 to 1.78). No important differences were noted for tolerability or for any subgroup analyses except the superior efficacy of venlafaxine flexible dosing between 75 and 150 mg over the fixed 75 mg (1.30, 1.02 to 1.65).

CONCLUSION

There was no evidence to support added value in terms of efficacy, tolerability or acceptability of flexibly titrating up the dosage over the minimum licensed dose of SSRIs or mirtazapine. For venlafaxine, increased efficacy can be expected by flexibly titrating up to 150 mg.

Lowered zinc and copper levels in drug-naïve patients with major depression: Effects of antidepressants, ketoprofen and immune activation

Objectives: The aim of the present work is to examine the effects of treatment with sertraline with and without ketoprofen on serum levels of zinc and copper in association with immune-inflammatory biomarkers in drug-naïve major depressed patients.Methods: We measured serum zinc and copper, interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-4, IL-6, IL-18, interferon-γ, and transforming growth factor-β1 in 40 controls and 133 depressed patients. The clinical efficacy of the treatment was measured using the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) at baseline and 8 weeks later.Results: We found significantly reduced serum zinc and copper in association with upregulation of all cytokines, indicating activation of the immune-inflammatory responses system (IRS) and the compensatory immune regulatory system (CIRS). Treatment with sertraline significantly increased zinc and decreased copper. During treatment, there was a significant inverse association between serum zinc and immune activation. The improvement in the BDI-II during treatment was significantly associated with increments in serum zinc coupled with attenuation of the IRS/CIRS.Conclusions: Lower zinc is a hallmark of depression, while increments in serum zinc and attenuation of the immune-inflammatory response during treatment appear to play a role in the clinical efficacy of sertraline.

Definition and Identification of Patients with Treatment-Resistant Depression in Real-World Clinical Practice Settings Across Asia

PURPOSE

An Asia-Pacific expert consensus defined treatment-resistant depression (TRD) as failure of ≥2 antidepressants given at adequate doses for 6-8 weeks during a major depressive episode. A survey examined how TRD was being diagnosed in real-world practices across Asia. An expert panel then interpreted the results and provided practical recommendations.

METHODS

Between March and July 2018, 246 clinicians from Hong Kong, Japan, Mainland China, South Korea, and Taiwan were surveyed on how they identified TRD patients according to their own definitions.

RESULTS

Most physicians described antidepressant failure as "no response" (79%) or "inadequate response" (82%); fewer chose "failure to achieve remission" (45%). About 40% did not routinely use clinical tools to assess response. Around 52% defined adequate dose target as achieving the label's upper dose limit. About 58% would treat for 4-8 weeks before determining antidepressant failure. Most (76%) required the ≥2 qualifying antidepressant failures to be from different classes. Approximately 60% considered antidepressant failure(s) from previous depressive episode(s) when diagnosing TRD.

CONCLUSION

Considering the survey results, antidepressant failure can be defined as a failure to achieve remission, or more practically as <50% improvement in depressive symptoms or inability to return to work/study, and confirmed with a clinical tool. TRD diagnosis also requires ≥2 qualifying antidepressant failures within the same depressive episode; from the same or different classes; and achieving at least the minimum effective antidepressant dose for 6-8 weeks.

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.

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.

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.

FORWARD Study: Evaluating the Comparative Effectiveness of OnabotulinumtoxinA and Topiramate for Headache Prevention in Adults With Chronic Migraine

Objective

To compare effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA and topiramate for chronic migraine (CM) prevention.

Background

The efficacy* of onabotulinumtoxinA and topiramate has been established in placebo‐controlled randomized clinical trials (*defined as the benefit of treatment under ideal conditions). The effectiveness* of the 2 preventive treatments, however, has not been established (*the benefit of treatment under real‐world conditions, representing a blend of efficacy and tolerability).

Methods

In this multicenter, randomized, parallel‐group, post‐authorization, open‐label prospective study (FORWARD; http://ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02191579), we randomized adults with CM (1:1) to onabotulinumtoxinA 155 U every 12 weeks for 3 cycles or topiramate “immediate release” 50‐100 mg/day to week 36. Primary outcome measure was proportion of patients achieving ≥50% reduction in headache days (weeks 29‐32). Missing values were imputed using baseline observation carried forward (BOCF) methodology. After 12 weeks, patients initially randomized to topiramate could cross over to onabotulinumtoxinA treatment. We monitored and recorded all adverse events (AEs).

Results

We enrolled 282 patients (onabotulinumtoxinA, n = 140; topiramate, n = 142) and 148 patients completed randomized treatment (onabotulinumtoxinA, n = 120 [86%]; topiramate, n = 28 [20%]). Primary reasons for withdrawal were ineffective treatment (onabotulinumtoxinA, n = 7 [5%]; topiramate, n = 27 [19%]) and AEs (onabotulinumtoxinA, n = 5 [4%]; topiramate, n = 72 [51%]). Eighty topiramate patients crossed over to onabotulinumtoxinA.

In the BOCF analysis, a significantly higher proportion of patients randomized to onabotulinumtoxinA experienced ≥50% reduction in headache frequency compared with those randomized to topiramate (40% [56/140] vs 12% [17/142], respectively; adjusted OR, 4.9 [95% CI, 2.7‐9.1]; P < .001). OnabotulinumtoxinA was superior to topiramate in meeting secondary endpoints. In a post hoc analysis using observed data, the 50% responder rates at week 12 were 45.6% for onabotulinumtoxinA (n = 125) and 29.4% for topiramate (n = 109) (P = .015). AEs were reported by 48% (105/220) of onabotulinumtoxinA and 79% (112/142) of topiramate patients. Results were similar in those who crossed over to onabotulinumtoxinA.

Conclusions

While using imputation methods of accounting for differences in discontinuation rates, we found onabotulinumtoxinA to have greater clinical utility than topiramate, largely because of tolerability issues associated with the latter and a relatively higher number of onabotulinumtoxinA patients remaining on treatment.

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.