Baseline severity of depression predicts antidepressant drug response relative to escitalopram

Predictors, moderators and mediators of psychological therapies for perinatal depression in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

Psychological interventions have demonstrated effectiveness in treating perinatal depression (PND), but understanding for whom, how and under what conditions they improve symptoms in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is largely unknown. This review aims to synthesise current knowledge about predictors, moderators and mediators of psychological therapies to treat PND in LMICs. Five databases were searched for studies quantitatively examining the effects of at least one mediator, moderator or predictor of therapies for PND in LMICs. The review sampled seven publications evaluating findings from randomised trials conducted in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. The small number of included studies limited generalisability of findings. Analyses of trials with acceptable quality suggest that patient activation in Pakistan and social support in both India and Pakistan may mediate psychotherapy effectiveness, higher baseline depression severity may moderate treatment response in South Africa, and shorter depression duration at baseline may moderate intervention response in India. This review highlights current gaps in evidence quality and the need for future trials exploring PND psychotherapy effectiveness in LMICs to follow reporting guidelines to facilitate appropriate predictor, moderator and mediator analyses.

Improving Depressive Symptoms of Post-stroke Depression Using the Shugan Jieyu Capsule: A Resting-State Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study

Regional homogeneity (ReHo) and fractional amplitude of low-frequency fluctuation (fALFF) were used to detect the neuroimaging mechanism of Shugan Jieyu Capsule (SG) in ameliorating depression of post-stroke depression (PSD) patients. Fifteen PSD patients took SG for 8 weeks, completed the 24-item Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD) assessment at the baseline and 8 weeks later, and underwent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scanning. Twenty-one healthy controls (HCs) underwent these assessments at the baseline. We found that SG improved depression of PSD patients, in which ReHo values decreased in the left calcarine sulcus (CAL.L) and increased in the left superior frontal gyrus (SFG.L) of PSD patients at the baseline. The fALFF values of the left inferior parietal cortex (IPL.L) decreased in PSD patients at the baseline. Abnormal functional activities in the brain regions were reversed to normal levels after the administration of SG for 8 weeks. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis found that the changes in three altered brain regions could be used to differentiate PSD patients at the baseline and HCs. Average signal values of altered regions were related to depression in all subjects at the baseline. Our results suggest that SG may ameliorate depression of PSD patients by affecting brain region activity and local synchronization.

Task-sharing of psychological treatment for antenatal depression in Khayelitsha, South Africa: Effects on antenatal and postnatal outcomes in an individual randomised controlled trial

The study's objective was to determine the effectiveness of a task-sharing psychological treatment for perinatal depression using non-specialist community health workers. A double-blind individual randomised controlled trial was conducted in two antenatal clinics in the peri-urban settlement of Khayelitsha, Cape Town. Adult pregnant women who scored 13 or above on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression rating Scale (EPDS) were randomised into the intervention arm (structured six-session psychological treatment) or the control arm (routine antenatal health care and three monthly phone calls). The primary outcome was response on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) at three months postpartum (minimum 40% score reduction from baseline) among participants who did not experience pregnancy or infant loss (modified intention-to-treat population) (registered on Clinical Trials: NCT01977326). Of 2187 eligible women approached, 425 (19.4%) screened positive on the EPDS and were randomised; 384 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (control: n = 200; intervention: n = 184). There were no significant differences in response on the HDRS at three months postpartum between the intervention and control arm. A task-sharing psychological treatment was not effective in treating depression among women living in Khayelitsha, South Africa. The findings give cause for reflection on the strategy of task-sharing in low-resource settings.

Combining threshold analysis and GRADE to assess sensitivity to bias in antidepressant treatment recommendations adjusted for depression severity

Threshold analysis has recently been proposed to be used in combination with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) in order to assess the sensitivity to plausible bias of treatment recommendations derived from Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). Here, it was aimed to apply the combination of threshold analysis and GRADE to judge quantitative and qualitative information on risk of bias in antidepressant treatment recommendations. The analysis was based on the data set provided by Cipriani et al. (The Lancet 2018) comparing 21 antidepressants in adult major depressive disorder (MDD). Primary outcomes were efficacy (response rate) and acceptability (dropout rate) adjusted for the covariate depression severity. The combined approach suggested sensitivity to plausible bias to be largest for antidepressant recommendations top ranked by Cipriani et al., that is, amitriptyline, duloxetine, paroxetine, and venlafaxine in terms of efficacy and agomelatine, escitalopram, paroxetine, and venlafaxine in terms of acceptability. Covariate ranges within which recommendations were most sensitive to plausible bias were very severe depression in terms of efficacy (smallest threshold, ie, the largest sensitivity, around 39 Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HDRS]) and moderate depression in terms of acceptability (smallest thresholds around 16 and 35 HDRS). This indicates that treatment recommendations within these ranges may likely change if plausible bias adjustments take place. The present findings may support decision makers in judging the sensitivity to plausible bias of current antidepressant treatment recommendations to accurately guide treatment decisions in MDD depending on depression severity.

Dual Roles for the TSPYL Family in Mediating Serotonin Transport and the Metabolism of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder

We previously reported that testis-specific Y-encoded-like protein (TSPYLs) are transcription regulators for CYP3A4, CYP2C9, and CYP2C19. Here, we observed dual roles for TSPYLs in mediating serotonin transport and the metabolism of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). The widely prescribed SSRIs, citalopram, and escitalopram are metabolized mainly by CYP2C19. The TSPYL1 rs3828743 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), which decreases its suppression of CYP2C19 expression, was associated with rapid escitalopram metabolism and worse treatment response in the Mayo PGRN-AMPS clinical trial. We also found that TSPYLs can regulate expression of the serotonin transporter protein, SLC6A4, and, in turn, serotonin transport into cells. The SNPs in tight linkage disequilibrium with the TSPYL1 rs10223646 SNP were significantly correlated with baseline severity of depression in patients with MDD in the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression and International SSRI Pharmacogenomics Consortium clinical trials. Our findings suggest that genetic variation in TSPYL genes may be novel indicators for baseline severity of depression and SSRI poor response.

Predictors of response to augmentation treatment in patients with treatment-resistant depression: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Treatment-resistant depression is an important contributor to the global burden of depression. Antidepressant augmentation is a recommended treatment strategy for treatment-resistant patients, but outcomes remain poor. Identifying factors that are predictive of response to augmentation treatments may improve outcomes.

AIMS

This review aimed to synthesise the existing literature examining predictors of response to augmentation treatments in patients who had insufficiently responded to initial treatment.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted identifying 2241 unique manuscripts. 24 examining predictors of outcome to pharmacological or psychological augmentation treatment were included in this review.

RESULTS

Atypical antipsychotics were the most frequently assessed treatment class (nine studies), closely followed by mood stabilisers (eight studies). Only one eligible psychological augmentation study was identified. Early response to treatment (week 2) was the best-supported predictor of subsequent treatment outcome, reported by six studies. Many predictor variables were only assessed by one report and others such as pre-treatment severity yielded contradictory results, both within and across treatment classes.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights the importance of early response as a predictor of pharmacological augmentation outcome, with implications for both the monitoring and treatment of resistant unipolar patients. Further replication is needed across specific interventions to fully assess the generalisability of this finding. However, the clear lack of consistent evidence for other predictive factors both within and across treatments, and the scarce examination of psychological augmentation, demonstrates the need for much more research of a high quality if response prediction is to improve outcomes for patients with treatment-resistant depression.

The severity of psychiatric disorders

The issue of the severity of psychiatric disorders has great clinical importance. For example, severity influences decisions about level of care, and affects decisions to seek government assistance due to psychiatric disability. Controversy exists as to the efficacy of antidepressants across the spectrum of depression severity, and whether patients with severe depression should be preferentially treated with medication rather than psychotherapy. Measures of severity are used to evaluate outcome in treatment studies and may be used as meaningful endpoints in clinical practice. But, what does it mean to say that someone has a severe illness? Does severity refer to the number of symptoms a patient is experiencing? To the intensity of the symptoms? To symptom frequency or persistence? To the impact of symptoms on functioning or on quality of life? To the likelihood of the illness resulting in permanent disability or death? Putting aside the issue of how severity should be operationalized, another consideration is whether severity should be conceptualized similarly for all illnesses or be disorder specific. In this paper, we examine how severity is characterized in research and contemporary psychiatric diagnostic systems, with a special focus on depression and personality disorders. Our review shows that the DSM-5 has defined the severity of various disorders in different ways, and that researchers have adopted a myriad of ways of defining severity for both depression and personality disorders, although the severity of the former was predominantly defined according to scores on symptom rating scales, whereas the severity of the latter was often linked with impairments in functioning. Because the functional impact of symptom-defined disorders depends on factors extrinsic to those disorders, such as self-efficacy, resilience, coping ability, social support, cultural and social expectations, as well as the responsibilities related to one's primary role function and the availability of others to assume those responsibilities, we argue that the severity of such disorders should be defined independently from functional impairment.

5 Hz Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for posttraumatic stress disorder comorbid with major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND

Standard clinical protocols for repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for major depressive disorder (MDD) apply 10 Hz pulses over left prefrontal cortex, yet little is known about the effects of rTMS in more diagnostically complex depressed patients.

OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is commonly comorbid with MDD, and while rTMS has been shown to alleviate PTSD symptoms in preliminary studies, ideal parameters remain unclear. We conducted a prospective, open-label study of 5 Hz rTMS for patients with comorbid PTSD + MDD and hypothesized stimulation would reduce symptoms of both disorders.

METHODS

Outpatients (N = 40) with PTSD + MDD and at least moderate global severity were enrolled. 5 Hz rTMS included up to 40 daily sessions followed by a 5-session taper. Symptoms were measured using the PTSD Checklist (PCL-5) and Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, Self-Report (IDS-SR). Baseline-to-endpoint changes were analyzed.

RESULTS

The intent-to-treat population included 35 participants. Stimulation significantly reduced PTSD symptoms (PCL-5 baseline mean ± SD score 52.2 ± 13.1 versus endpoint 34.0 ± 21.6; p < .001); 23 patients (48.6%) met a pre-defined categorical PTSD response criteria. MDD symptoms also improved significantly (IDS-SR, baseline 47.8 ± 11.9 to endpoint 30.9 ± 18.9; p < .001); 15 patients (42.9%) demonstrated categorical response and 12 (34.3%) remitted. PTSD and MDD symptom change was highly correlated (r = 0.91, p < .001).

LIMITATIONS

Unblinded single-arm study, with modest sample size.

CONCLUSION

Significant and clinically meaningful reductions in both MDD and PTSD symptoms were observed following stimulation. The preliminary efficacy of 5 Hz rTMS for both symptom domains in patients with comorbid disorders supports future controlled studies.

Is It Time for Going Beyond the P-Value Paradigm With the Estimation of the Probability of Clinical Benefit as a Criterion for Assessing the Outcomes of a Clinical Trial? A Case Study in Patients With Major Depressive Disorder

The conventional statistical methodologies for evaluating treatment effect are based on hypothesis testing (P-value). Alternative measurements of treatment effect have been proposed for anti-infective treatments using the probability of target attainment. A general framework is proposed to extend this methodology to other therapeutic areas. A disease trial model is used for estimating the probability of reaching a treatment effect associated with relevant clinical benefits, in complement to the evaluation of the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis. A case study is presented in depression, where disease status is evaluated using bounded clinical scores (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale), and detectable treatment effect is inversely proportional to placebo response. The β-regression approach is used to model Hamilton scale scores, and a placebo-related criterion is proposed for determining the clinical benefit. The probability of reaching a clinical benefit represents a reliable criterion for replacing the P-value paradigm in the assessment of the outcomes of clinical trials.

Effect of fish oil omega-3 fatty acids on reduction of depressive symptoms among HIV-seropositive pregnant women: a randomized, double-blind controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Globally, it is known that HIV-infected pregnant women are prone to depressive symptoms. Research evidences also suggest that nutrient deficiencies may enhance the depressive illness, and that fish oil omega-3 fatty acids may alleviate the depressive symptoms. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of fish oil omega-3 eicosapentaenoic acid-rich supplements on depressive symptoms among HIV-seropositive pregnant women.

TRIAL DESIGN

A randomized double-blinded controlled trial with two parallel groups was conducted. The intervention group received fish oil omega-3 of 3.17 g (eicosapentaenoic acid = 2.15 g; docosahexaenoic acid = 1.02 g) per day for 8 weeks, while the control group received soybean oil for a similar period.

METHOD

Participants were HIV-seropositive pregnant women who were enrolled in prevention of mother-to-child transmission programs and attending antenatal clinics at selected Nairobi city county's health facilities. Recruitment was done from health records of HIV-infected pregnant women. Data analysis followed per-protocol analysis. Participants who completed the 8-week trial were included in the analysis of covariance statistical model with omega-3 as main effect. The covariates in the change in BDI-II depressive symptom score outcome were baseline characteristics and nutrient adequacy.

RESULTS

282 participants were recruited 109 randomized to fish oil, and 107 to soybean oil. Completion rate was 86/109 (78.9%) and 96/107 (89.7%) respectively. At the end of week-8 of follow up most participants in both arms had mild depressive symptoms 82/86 (95.3%) in the Fish oil group and 94/96 (97.9%) in the Soybean oil group. The difference in effect between the intervention and control group was not statistically significant (1.01 (95% CI - 0.58 to 2.60), p = 0.21).

CONCLUSION

Fish oil omega-3 with a daily dosage of 3.17 g (eicosapentaenoic acid = 2.15 g; docosahexaenoic acid = 1.02 g) appears to provide no added benefit in reduction of the symptoms of depression in HIV-infected pregnant women.Trial Registration Clinical Trial Registry: NCT01614249. Registered on June 5, 2012. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01614249.

Early improvement as a resilience signal predicting later remission to antidepressant treatment in patients with Major Depressive Disorder: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Early improvement of depressive symptoms during the first two weeks of antidepressant treatment has been discussed to be a resilience signal predicting a later positive treatment outcome in patients with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). However, the predictive value of early improvement varies between studies, and the use of different antidepressants may explain heterogeneous results. The objective of this review was to assess the predictive value of early improvement on later response and remission and to identify antidepressants with the highest chance of early improvement. We included 17 randomized controlled trials investigating early improvement in 14,779 adult patients with MDD comparing monotherapy with an antidepressant against placebo or another antidepressant drug. 62% (range: 35-85%) of patients treated with an antidepressant and 47% (range: 21-69%) with placebo were early improver, defined as a >20%/25% symptom reduction after two weeks of treatment. Early improvement predicted response and remission after 5-12 weeks of treatment with high sensitivity (85%; 95%-CI: 84.3 to 85.7) and low to moderate specificity (54%; 95%-CI: 53.1 to 54.9). Early improver had a 8.37 fold (6.97-10.05) higher likelihood to become responder and a 6.38 fold (5.07-8.02) higher likelihood to be remitter at endpoint than non-improver. The highest early improver rates were achieved in patients treated with mirtazapine or a tricyclic antidepressant. This finding of a high predictive value of early improvement on treatment outcome may be important for treatment decisions in the early course of antidepressant treatment. Further studies should test the efficacy of such early treatment decisions.

A combined marker of early non-improvement and the occurrence of melancholic features improve the treatment prediction in patients with Major Depressive Disorders

BACKGROUND

Early Improvement of depressive symptoms within two weeks of antidepressant treatment is a highly sensitive but less specific predictor of later treatment outcome. The aim of this study was to identify clinical features at treatment initiation which are associated with early improvement and non-improvement as well as to identify variables predicting non-remission in patients showing an early improvement.

METHODS

889 patients with a major depressive episode according to DSM-IV who had participated in an antidepressant treatment trial served as study sample. Clinical predictors (demographic variables, psychopathology, comorbid disorders) were analysed in 698 (79%) early improver (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale reduction > 20% after 14 days of treatment) compared to 191 (21%) non-improver. Furthermore, clinical predictors for later remission and non-remission were analysed in the 698 patients showing an early improvement.

RESULTS

Patients with more severe depression and suicidality were more likely to become non-improver, and also non-remitter after 8 weeks of treatment in case of early improvement. Early improver with melancholic, anxious or atypical depression as well as with comorbid social phobia or avoidant personality disorder had an increased risk for non-remission at study end. The combined marker of early non-improvement and the occurrence of melancholic features increased the specificity of treatment prediction from 30% to 90%.

LIMITATIONS

Comorbid disorders were only assessed at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with early non-improvement and melancholic features at treatment initiation have a particularly high risk of later non-remission. This group of patients should be considered more attention in treatment decisions.

Antidepressant effect in older depressed patients: the lessons of two agomelatine trials

The present paper reports in parallel the findings of the two phase III trials that evaluated the efficacy of agomelatine in older depressed patients. It describes how the particular methodological innovations (particularly in relation to patient selection, design and accuracy of diagnosis of depression) introduced in study 2 have improved the quality of recruitment of patients and the assay sensitivity. Study 1 lacked assay sensitivity, and among the many differences with study 2, the inclusion of unexpected mildly ill patients could have inflated the placebo response. The increased demands on investigators in study 2 appear to have reduced the placebo effect and showed a robust benefit of agomelatine. The two agomelatine studies offer the opportunity to discuss hypotheses that have been raised to explain the low level of response of older patients to available antidepressants.

Efficacy and safety of escitalopram in treatment of severe depression in Chinese population

Severe depression accounts for one-third of depressed patients. Increasing severity of depression usually hinders patients from achieving remission. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of escitalopram in acute-phase treatment of severe major depressive disorder (MDD). A total of 225 participants with severe MDD (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition criteria), with a current depressive episode and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score of ≥30 were enrolled. Participants received flexible dose escitalopram (10-20 mg/d) treatment for 8 weeks. Symptoms status was assessed by MADRS, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D-17), and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A). Quality of life was assessed by Short Form-12 (SF-12) and safety by adverse events, laboratory investigations, vital signs and physical findings. The remission (MADRS total score ≤ 10) rate in the intent-to-treat set (n = 207) was 72.9% at week 8. Significant improvement in symptoms compared to baseline, as evaluated by MADRS, HAMD-17 and HAMA scores at baseline, week 1, week 2, week 4, and week 8 (p < 0.0001 for all), was noted. Mean (SD) reduction from baseline in MADRS total score was 26.6 (11.38). Improvements in SF-12 score were significant (p = 0.000) and positively related to symptom improvement and negatively related to treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). TEAEs were reported in 28.38% of participants. Most common TEAEs (>4%) were somnolence (9.0%), nausea (7.7%), hyperhidrosis (4.5%), dry mouth and dizziness (4.1% each). No serious TEAEs were reported. Escitalopram was effective and well-tolerated for acute-phase treatment of severe depression in Chinese population.

Series: Pragmatic trials and real world evidence: Paper 3. Patient selection challenges and consequences

This paper addresses challenges of identifying, enrolling, and retaining participants in a trial conducted within a routine care setting. All patients who are potential candidates for the treatments in routine clinical practice should be considered eligible for a pragmatic trial. To ensure generalizability, the recruited sample should have a similar distribution of the treatment effect modifiers as the target population. In practice, this can be best achieved by including-within the selected sites-all patients without further selection. If relevant heterogeneity between subgroups is expected, increasing the relative proportion of the subgroup of patients in the heterogeneous trial could be considered (oversampling) or a separate trial in this subgroup can be planned. Selection will nevertheless occur. Low enrollment and loss to follow-up can introduce selection and can jeopardize validity as well as generalizability. Pragmatic trials are conducted in clinical practice rather than in a dedicated research setting, which could reduce recruitment rates. However, if a trial poses a minimal burden to the physician and the patient and routine clinical practice is maximally adhered to, the participation rate may be high and loss to follow-up will not be a specific problem for pragmatic trials.

Efficacy and tolerability of escitalopram in treatment of major depressive disorder with anxiety symptoms: a 24-week, open-label, prospective study in Chinese population

BACKGROUND

Significant anxiety symptoms are associated with poor clinical course and outcome in major depressive disorder (MDD). This single-arm, open-label study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of escitalopram treatment in patients with MDD and anxiety symptoms.

METHODS

Adult patients with MDD and anxiety symptoms (Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] ≥22 and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale [HAM-A] ≥14) were enrolled and received escitalopram (10-20 mg/day) treatment for 24 weeks. Symptom status was assessed by MADRS, 17-item-Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, HAM-A, and Clinical Global Impression Scale at baseline and the following visits. Quality of life was assessed by Short Form-12, and safety was evaluated by adverse events, laboratory investigations, vital signs, and physical findings.

RESULTS

Overall, 200 of 318 (66.2%) enrolled patients completed the 24-week treatment. The remission (MADRS ≤10 and HAM-A ≤7) rate in the full analysis set (N=285) was 73.3% (95% confidence interval: 67.80, 78.38) at week 24. Mean (± standard deviation) MADRS total score was 33.4 (±7.13) and HAM-A score was 27.6 (±7.26) at baseline, which reduced to 6.6 (±10.18) and 6.0 (±8.39), respectively, at week 24. Patients with higher baseline depression and anxiety level took longer to achieve similar remission rates. Overall, 80 of the 302 (26.5%) patients included in the safety set reported at least 1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). Most frequently reported TEAEs (>2%) were headache (4.0%), nasopharyngitis (3.6%), nausea (3.0%), and dizziness (2.6%). Serious TEAEs were reported by 1.3% patients; no deaths were reported.

CONCLUSION

Escitalopram 10-20 mg/day was effective and well-tolerated in the long-term treatment of MDD with anxiety symptoms in adult Chinese population.

Clinical correlates of difficult-to-treat depression: Exploring an integrated day-care model of treatment

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

This study aimed to test the effectiveness of an individualized, integrated, day-care treatment programme for the acute phase of "difficult-to-treat depression" (DTD) in a sample of bipolar and unipolar subjects with a complex co-morbidity pattern.

METHODS

A total of 291 patients meeting criteria for DTD were consecutively recruited. All participants underwent a 12-week day-care intervention including individual psychological support and group psycho-education. Subjects were assessed for depressive symptom severity by the 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) at the baseline (T0) and after 4 (T1) and 12 (T2) weeks of treatment. A repeated measures general linear model was performed to test for interactive effects among variables.

RESULTS

An overall significant improvement was detected in the majority of cases (F = 138.6, p < 0.0001). Responders reported lower rates of personality disorders and higher baseline depressive severity. An interaction between bipolarity and co-morbidity was associated with a poorer outcome (F = 5.9, p = 0.0034). Family involvement was the only significant predictor for symptom improvement (F = 7.9, adjusted p = 0.0025).

CONCLUSIONS

Our intervention proved to be effective in the treatment of complex and severe forms of depression. Our results on the role of family support require further investigation to better define suitable targets for tailored therapeutic approaches.

What to expect from a third step in treatment resistant depression: A prospective open study on escitalopram

OBJECTIVES

Only few studies investigated treatment strategies for treatment resistant depression (TRD). The objective of this multicentre study was to evaluate TRD patients who did not respond to at least two antidepressants.

METHODS

A total of 417 patients, who failed to respond to a previous retrospectively assessed antidepressant (AD1), were firstly included in a 6-week venlafaxine treatment (AD2); secondly, those who failed to respond were treated for further 6 weeks with escitalopram (AD3).

RESULTS

Out of 417 patients who had failed to respond to previous treatment (AD1), 334 completed treatment with venlafaxine to prospectively define TRD. In the intent to treat (ITT) population in the first phase of the trial (AD2), responders to venlafaxine were 151 (36.21%) out of which remitters were 83 (19.90%). After phase one, 170 non-responders, defined as TRD, were included in the second phase and 157 completed the course. Of the 170 ITT entering the second phase (AD3), responders to escitalopram were 71 (41.76%) out of which remitters were 39 (22.94%). After the third treatment, patients showed a dropout rate of 7.65% and a rate of presence of at least one serious adverse event of 19.18%.

CONCLUSIONS

Relevant rates of response and remission may be observed after a third line treatment in patients resistant to two previous treatments. A relevant limitation of this study was represented by the design: naturalistic, non-randomized, open-label, without a control sample and with unblinded raters.

A Novel Methodology to Estimate the Treatment Effect in Presence of Highly Variable Placebo Response

One of the main reasons for the inefficiency of multicenter randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in depression is the excessively high level of placebo response. The aim of this work was to propose a novel methodology to analyze RCTs based on the assumption that centers with high placebo response are less informative than the other centers for estimating the 'true' treatment effect (TE). A linear mixed-effect modeling approach for repeated measures (MMRM) was used as a reference approach. The new method for estimating TE was based on a nonlinear longitudinal modeling of clinical scores (NLMMRM). NLMMRM estimates TE by associating a weighting factor to the data collected in each center. The weight was defined by the posterior probability of detecting a clinically relevant difference between active treatment and placebo at that center. Data from five RCTs in depression were used to compare the performance of MMRM with NLMMRM. The results of the analyses showed an average improvement of ~15% in the TE estimated with NLMMRM when the center effect was included in the analyses. Opposite results were observed with MMRM: TE estimate was reduced by ~4% when the center effect was considered as covariate in the analysis. The novel NLMMRM approach provides a tool for controlling the confounding effect of high placebo response, to increase signal detection and to provide a more reliable estimate of the 'true' TE by controlling false negative results associated with excessively high placebo response.

Curcumin as a putative antidepressant

Due to inadequate efficacy of antidepressants, various new chemical entities and agents of natural origin have been tested for therapeutic efficacy both alone and to augment existing antidepressants, producing varied clinical results. This article summarizes the basic properties of curcumin and its mechanisms of action, with specific emphasis on the etiopathogenesis of depression, preclinical and current clinical evidence, and future research directions, to better understand the possible role of curcumin in treating depression. Curcumin may have antidepressant activities with diverse mechanisms of action involving primarily neurotransmitters, transcription pathways, neurogenesis, the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and inflammatory and immune pathways, as demonstrated in various animal and human studies. Current published randomized clinical trials suggest a small, non-significant benefit of curcumin for major depression. More adequately-powered and methodologically improved studies are mandatory.

Application of the Gradient Boosted method in randomised clinical trials: Participant variables that contribute to depression treatment efficacy of duloxetine, SSRIs or placebo

BACKGROUND

Randomised, placebo-controlled trials of treatments for depression typically collect outcomes data but traditionally only analyse data to demonstrate efficacy and safety. Additional post-hoc statistical techniques may reveal important insights about treatment variables useful when considering inter-individual differences amongst depressed patients. This paper aims to examine the Gradient Boosted Model (GBM), a statistical technique that uses regression tree analyses and can be applied to clinical trial data to identify and measure variables that may influence treatment outcomes.

METHODS

GBM was applied to pooled data from 12 randomised clinical trials of 4987 participants experiencing an acute depressive episode who were treated with duloxetine, an SSRI or placebo to predict treatment remission. Additional analyses were conducted on the same dataset using the logistic regression model for comparison between these two methods.

RESULTS

With GBM, there were noticeable differences between treatments when identifying which and to what extent variables were associated with remission. A single logistic regression only revealed a decreasing or increasing relationship between predictors and remission while GBM was able to reveal a complex relationship between predictors and remission.

LIMITATIONS

These analyses were conducted post-hoc utilising clinical trials databases. The criteria for constructing the analyses data were based on the characteristics of the clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

GBM can be used to identify and quantify patient variables that predict remission with specific treatments and has greater flexibility than the logistic regression model. GBM may provide new insights into inter-individual differences in treatment response that may be useful for selecting individualised treatments.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

IMPACT clinical trial number 3327; IMPACT clinical trial number 4091; IMPACT clinical trial number 4689; IMPACT clinical trial number 4298; NCT00071695; NCT00062673; NCT00036335; NCT00067912; NCT00073411; NCT00489775; NCT00536471; NCT00666757 (note that trials with IMPACT numbers predate mandatory clinical trial registration requirements).

Use of band-pass filter analysis to evaluate outcomes in an antidepressant trial for treatment resistant patients

Band-pass filtering is a novel statistical methodology that proposes that filtering out data from trial sites generating non-plausible high or low levels of placebo response can yield a more accurate effect size and greater separation of active drug (when efficacious) from placebo. We applied band-pass filters to re-analyze data from a negative antidepressant trial (NCT00739908) evaluating CX157 (a reversible and selective monoamine oxidase inhibitor-A) versus placebo. 360 patients from 29 trial sites were randomized to either CX157 treatment (n=182) or placebo (n=178). We applied two filters of<3 or>7 points (filter #1) or<3 and>9 points (filter #2) mean change of the total MADRS placebo scores for each site. Trial sites that had mean placebo MADRS score changes exceeding the boundaries of these band-pass filter thresholds were considered non-informative and all of the data from these sites were excluded from the post-hoc re-analysis. The two band-pass filters reduced the sample of informative patients from 353 patients in the mITT population to 62 in filter #1 and 152 in the filter #2 group. The placebo response was reduced from 31.1% in the mITT population to 9.4% with filter #1 and 20.8% with filter #2. MMRM analysis revealed a non-statistically significant trend of p=0.13 and 0.16 for the two filters in contrast to the mITT population (p= 0.58). Our findings support the band-pass filter hypothesis and highlight issues related to site-based scoring variability and inappropriate subject selection that may contribute to trial failure.

No effect of serotoninergic gene variants on response to interpersonal counseling and antidepressants in major depression

OBJECTIVE

Gene variants within the serotonin pathway have been associated with major depressive disorder (MDD) treatment outcomes, however a possible different modulation on pharmacological or psychological treatments has never been investigated.

METHODS

One hundred sixty MDD patients were partially randomized to either inter-personal counseling (IPC) or antidepressants. The primary outcome was remission at week 8. Five serotonergic polymorphisms were investigated (COMT rs4680, HTR1A rs6295, HTR2A rs2224721, HTR2A rs7997012 and SLC6A4 rs421417).

RESULTS

IPC (n=43) and antidepressant (n=117) treated patients did not show any difference in remission rates at week 8 (corrected for baseline severity, age and center). None of the studied gene variants impacted on response and remission rates at week 8 neither in the IPC nor in the antidepressant group. An analysis of the whole sample showed a trend of association between rs7997012 AA genotype and a better treatment outcome.

CONCLUSION

Our study confirms that IPC is an effective psychological intervention comparable to antidepressants in mild-moderate MDD. Polymorphisms related to the serotonin system did not exert a major effect on clinical outcomes in none of the treatment groups.

A machine learning approach using EEG data to predict response to SSRI treatment for major depressive disorder

OBJECTIVE

The problem of identifying, in advance, the most effective treatment agent for various psychiatric conditions remains an elusive goal. To address this challenge, we investigate the performance of the proposed machine learning (ML) methodology (based on the pre-treatment electroencephalogram (EEG)) for prediction of response to treatment with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) medication in subjects suffering from major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHODS

A relatively small number of most discriminating features are selected from a large group of candidate features extracted from the subject's pre-treatment EEG, using a machine learning procedure for feature selection. The selected features are fed into a classifier, which was realized as a mixture of factor analysis (MFA) model, whose output is the predicted response in the form of a likelihood value. This likelihood indicates the extent to which the subject belongs to the responder vs. non-responder classes. The overall method was evaluated using a "leave-n-out" randomized permutation cross-validation procedure.

RESULTS

A list of discriminating EEG biomarkers (features) was found. The specificity of the proposed method is 80.9% while sensitivity is 94.9%, for an overall prediction accuracy of 87.9%. There is a 98.76% confidence that the estimated prediction rate is within the interval [75%, 100%].

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that the proposed ML method holds considerable promise in predicting the efficacy of SSRI antidepressant therapy for MDD, based on a simple and cost-effective pre-treatment EEG.

SIGNIFICANCE

The proposed approach offers the potential to improve the treatment of major depression and to reduce health care costs.

Determining severity subtypes of depression with a self-report questionnaire

The American Psychiatric Association's recently revised guidelines for the treatment of major depressive disorder indicated that it is important to consider symptom severity in initial treatment selection. In the present report from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project, we conducted two studies of psychiatric outpatients examining the correlates of severity classification based on a self-report depression scale. The first sample consisted of 470 depressed outpatients who completed the Clinically Useful Depression Outcome Scale (CUDOS) and measures of psychosocial morbidity at the time of presentation. The second sample consisted of 112 depressed outpatients who completed the CUDOS and were evaluated with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale at baseline and after 3 months of treatment. Compared to mildly depressed patients, moderately depressed patients reported significantly more psychosocial morbidity across all functional domains. The same differences were found between moderately and severely depressed patients. Greater severity of depression was associated with lower rates of response and remission. The results of the present studies suggest that a self-report depression questionnaire can validly subtype depressed patients according to gradations of severity.

Aripiprazole in bipolar depression: a pooled, post-hoc analysis by severity of core depressive symptoms

OBJECTIVE

This post-hoc analysis of pooled data from two similarly designed trials assessed the impact of aripiprazole monotherapy vs. placebo on treatment outcomes based on baseline severity of core depressive symptoms in patients with bipolar I disorder.

METHODS

Patients were classified as severely depressed (Bech-6 Total score > 15) or less severely depressed (Bech-6 Total score < 15). Efficacy was assessed by mean changes in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) Total and MADRS-6 subscale scores from baseline to endpoint using a mixed model repeated measures analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 133 patients (n = 62 on active aripiprazole) were classified as severely depressed and 612 patients (n = 309 aripiprazole) as less severely depressed. At endpoint, the mean MADRS Total score reduction for severely depressed patients receiving aripiprazole compared with placebo was -19.4 vs. -15.4 (P = 0.14), whereas MADRS-6 subscale score reduction for patients receiving aripiprazole compared with placebo was -13.8 vs. -10.3 (P = 0.07). Adverse event profiles were similar between the two severity groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Symptomatic improvements assessed here suggest that aripiprazole monotherapy at the doses studied may provide some improvements in core symptoms of depression in patients with bipolar I disorder who were more severely depressed.

Trial Simulation to estimate Type I error when a population window enrichment strategy is used to improve efficiency of clinical trials in depression

Performance of recruitment centers is a critical feature for the success of multicentric randomized clinical trials (RCT). An enrichment window strategy (EWS) was recently proposed to enhance signal detection in RCTs based on the identification of centers with non-plausible placebo response, leading to a Per Protocol exclusion of all data from these non-informative centers before statistical analysis. The risk of an inflated Type I error associated with EWS was assessed using Clinical Trial Simulation. Randomized two-arm placebo controlled trials were simulated under the assumption that the drug treatment was ineffective.The results obtained in the absence of population enrichment were compared to the results obtained after EWS application. The results indicated that EWS preserved the Type I error showing no bias, at variance with other procedures. These results were confirmed by simulating 13 three-arm placebo controlled RCTs from the GSK Clinical Database.

[Clinical efficacy and achievement of a complete remission in depression: increasing interest in treatment with escitalopram]

Such a prevalent disease as Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), associated with prominent impairment in physical and social functioning, implies as well an increased morbidity and mortality. Long-term treatments are required due to the frequent occurrence of relapses. Patient compliance is a core factor in both acute and continuation treatment, closely related to tolerability issues. We have partially reviewed the literature published on PubMed since 2004 which assess the relative antidepressant efficacy of escitalopram and comparator antidepressants in adult patients who met DSM-IV criteria for major depressive disorder (MDD). Clinically important differences exist between commonly prescribed antidepressants. These analyses are in favor of a superior efficacy and tolerability of long-term escitalopram treatment (10 to 20mg/day) compared with active controls, including selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) (paroxetine, citalopram, bupropion, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, sertraline), serotonin/noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) (venlafaxine, milnacipran and duloxetine) and noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressants (NaSSAs) (mirtazapine). Cipriani et al. (2009) have performed a network meta-analysis of 12 new generation antidepressants. They have shown that clinically important differences exist between commonly prescribed antidepressants for both efficacy and acceptability in favor of escitalopram and sertraline in acute treatment, defined as 8-week treatment. Kasper et al. (2009) conducted a post-hoc pooled analysis of data from two 6-month randomized controlled trials that revealed superior efficacy and tolerability of escitalopram when compared with paroxetine. The pooled analysis of four randomized, double-blind, active comparator, 6-month trials in MDD, by Wade et al. (2009), showed that short-term outcomes may predict long-term treatment compliance and outcomes. A higher probability of achieving remission was associated with responding after 8 weeks and with completing 6 months of treatment. Furthermore, Week 24 complete remission (MADRS≤5) was significantly (P<0,01) higher for escitalopram (51.7%) than for the pooled comparators (45.6%). And after 6 months, fewer patients discontinued treatment with escitalopram (15.9%) than with the pooled comparators (23.9%) (P<0.001). This fragmentary review of the literature shows that it is necessary to adopt a stringent definition of remission in depression, especially in clinical trials; a MADRS total score less or equal to 10 to define remission, a MADRS total score less or equal to 5 to define complete remission, and moreover no MADRS single item greater than 1 to define symptom-free remission. In all these meta-analyses, the superiority of escitalopram compared with other antidepressants was confirmed for both acute and long-term treatment of MDD, especially in harshly depressed patients.

Do early changes in the HAM-D-17 anxiety/somatization factor items affect the treatment outcome among depressed outpatients? Comparison of two controlled trials of St John's wort (Hypericum perforatum) versus a SSRI

To assess whether early changes in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-17 anxiety/somatization items predict remission in two controlled studies of Hypericum perforatum (St John's wort) versus selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for major depressive disorder. The Hypericum Depression Trial Study Group (National Institute of Mental Health) randomized 340 patients to Hypericum, sertraline, or placebo for 8 weeks, whereas the Massachusetts General Hospital study randomized 135 patients to Hypericum, fluoxetine, or placebo for 12 weeks. The investigators examined whether remission was associated with early changes in anxiety/somatization symptoms. In the National Institute of Mental Health study, significant associations were observed between remission and early improvement in the anxiety (psychic) item (sertraline arm), somatic (gastrointestinal item; Hypericum arm), and somatic (general) symptoms (placebo arm). None of the three treatment arms of the Massachusetts General Hospital study showed significant associations between anxiety/somatization symptoms and remission. When both study samples were pooled, we found associations for anxiety (psychic; selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors arm), somatic (gastrointestinal), and hypochondriasis (Hypericum arm), and anxiety (psychic) and somatic (general) symptoms (placebo arm). In the entire sample, remission was associated with the improvement in the anxiety (psychic), somatic (gastrointestinal), and somatic (general) items. The number and the type of anxiety/somatization items associated with remission varied depending on the intervention. Early scrutiny of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-17 anxiety/somatization items may help to predict remission of major depressive disorder.

Comparative efficacy of escitalopram in the treatment of major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND

Escitalopram is an allosteric selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) with some indication of superior efficacy in the treatment of major depressive disorder. In this systematic review, we critically evaluate the evidence for comparative efficacy and tolerability of escitalopram, focusing on pooled and meta-analysis studies.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted for escitalopram studies that quantitatively synthesized data from comparative randomized controlled trials in MDD. Studies were excluded if they did not focus on efficacy, involved primarily subgroups of patients, or synthesized data included in subsequent studies. Outcomes extracted from the included studies were weighted mean difference or standard mean difference, response and remission rates, and withdrawal rate owing to adverse events.

RESULTS

The search initially identified 24 eligible studies, of which 12 (six pooled analysis and six meta-analysis studies) met the criteria for review. The pooled and meta-analysis studies with citalopram showed significant but modest differences in favor of escitalopram, with weighted mean differences ranging from 1.13 to 1.73 points on the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale, response rate differences of 7.0%-8.3%, and remission rate differences of 5.1%-17.6%. Pooled analysis studies showed efficacy differences compared with duloxetine and with serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors combined, but meta-analysis studies did not. The effect sizes of the efficacy differences increased in the severely depressed patient subgroups.

CONCLUSION

Based on pooled and meta-analysis studies, escitalopram demonstrates superior efficacy compared with citalopram and with SSRIs combined. Escitalopram shows similar efficacy to serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors but the number of trials in these comparisons is limited. Efficacy differences are modest but clinically relevant, especially in more severely depressed patients.

Escitalopram: a review of its use in the management of major depressive disorder in adults

Escitalopram (escitalopram oxalate; Cipralex, Lexapro), a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) indicated for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD), demonstrates a highly selective and potent, dose-dependent inhibition of the human serotonin transporter, inhibiting serotonin reuptake into presynaptic nerve terminals and thus increasing serotonergic activity in the CNS. With regard to primary endpoints (such as improved scores on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HAM-D]), escitalopram was generally more effective than placebo, at least as effective as citalopram, and generally at least as effective as other comparator drugs, including the SSRIs fluoxetine, paroxetine and sertraline, the serotonin-noradrenaline (norepinephrine) reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) venlafaxine extended release and duloxetine, and the aminoketone bupropion in adult patients with MDD in short-term, well designed trials. Moreover, it demonstrated a rapid onset of antidepressant action. Escitalopram was also found to be cost effective in several studies, dominating other SSRIs and venlafaxine extended release. Maintenance therapy is commonly required to prevent recurrence of depression. Long-term trials corroborated short-term results, with escitalopram demonstrating greater efficacy than placebo in relapse prevention. Additionally, escitalopram was at least as effective as citalopram, paroxetine and duloxetine in long-term comparative trials. Escitalopram has a predictable tolerability profile with generally mild to moderate and transient adverse events, and a low propensity for drug interactions. Sexual dysfunction with escitalopram treatment appeared to occur to a similar or lower extent to that with paroxetine (another SSRI), to a similar or greater extent to that with the SNRI duloxetine, and to a greater extent than that with the aminoketone bupropion. Thus, escitalopram is an effective and generally well tolerated treatment for moderate to severe MDD. Escitalopram, like other SSRIs, is an effective first-line option in the management of patients with MDD.

Antidepressant pharmacotherapy in adults with type 2 diabetes: rates and predictors of initial response

OBJECTIVE Initial treatment with antidepressant medication is insufficiently effective in some patients with type 2 diabetes, and factors predicting treatment outcome are poorly understood. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Aggregate data from two published trials were analyzed to determine the rates and predictors of response to antidepressant pharmacotherapy in adults with type 2 diabetes using conventional markers of initial treatment outcome (improvement, response, partial remission, and remission). Three hundred eighty-seven patients who received up to 16 weeks of open-label, acute-phase treatment using bupropion (n = 93) or sertraline (n = 294) were studied. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of poor treatment outcome. Candidate predictors included age, race, sex, initial Beck Depression Inventory (iBDI) score, treatment received (sertraline or bupropion), family history of depression, extant diabetes complications (eDC), and A1C level. RESULTS Of 387 patients initiated on treatment, 330 (85.3%) met criteria for improvement, 232 (59.9%) for response, 207 (53.5%) for partial remission, and 179 (46.3%) for full remission. Significant independent predictors of poor outcome included eDC (for no improvement); sertraline treatment, eDC, and younger age (for nonresponse); sertraline treatment, eDC, and higher iBDI (for failure to partially remit); and younger age and higher iBDI (for failure to fully remit). Higher pain scores predicted three of the four markers of poor outcome in the subset with pain data. CONCLUSIONS In patients with type 2 diabetes, poor initial response to antidepressant medication is predicted by multiple factors. Auxiliary treatment of pain and impairment may be required to achieve better outcomes.

[Severe depression : pharmacological treatments]

Depression is a common illness with a large clinical phenotype, and clinicians have numerous guidelines to treat this disorder : many antidepressant drugs are available with different pharmacological profiles and stepped strategies are proposed to obtain a remission. It exists a relationship between baseline depression symptom severity and treatment response and patient with higher levels of severity received significantly more intervention visits, more months of antidepressant treatment and more antidepressant trials, but there is not accepted and consensual definition for severe depression. By using cut-off scores on rating scales severe depression is at one extreme of a continuum of severity (but scales which serve for quantifying the intensity of the depression with thresholds present an interest and also limits, in the current practice, they are rarely used), in the other hand some symptoms contributes to severity (psychotics features, suicidal ideation), evolution and prognosis is a part of severity too (recurrences, chronicity), severe depression can influence a somatic pathology contributing to severity (could be considered itself as a major risk factor) and have an impact on treatment outcome, finally by its role on morbi-mortality and handicap, depression is often a severe disorder. So, concerning the therapeutic choices, there are few data to choose specific options because the concept of severity in the depression is not still clearly defined in studies and few randomized contolled studies have been done in this indication and adapted to different modality of the severity expression. Symptom-free remission is a goal for treatment in severe depression, but complications have to be considered in medication algorithms. In this paper, we review the modalities of prescription of antidepressants according to these differences of the severity in depression.

Healthcare utilization and costs incurred by patients with major depression after being switched from escitalopram to another SSRI for non-medical reasons

OBJECTIVE

To compare healthcare utilization and costs for major depressive disorder (MDD) patients treated with escitalopram and who were switched to another SSRI for non-medical reasons versus those who did not switch.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients were identified in the Ingenix Impact Database (2003-2006). The analysis group included patients who remained on escitalopram for ≥ 90 days and switched to another SSRI within 45 days of end of supply days for non-medical reasons; the control group included matched individuals who did not switch within 45 days. Switching for medical reasons was defined as switching within 7 days after having a hospitalization, an emergency room (ER) visit, or a psychotherapy visit. Outcomes (all-cause and MDD-related) were analyzed over 3 months and included use of hospital, ER, outpatient visits and professional services, and healthcare costs. Outcomes were compared between the two groups using descriptive statistics and regression analyses controlling for differences in baseline characteristics. Costs were inflation adjusted to 2006 US dollars.

RESULTS

The study included 2,805 matched pairs. Compared to controls, switchers had higher rates of all-cause and MDD-related hospitalizations (relative risk [RR] = 1.4 and 2.0, respectively) and all-cause and MDD-related ER visits (RR = 1.2 and 1.6, respectively, all p ≤ 0.05). Results from multivariate analyses show that switchers had higher medical costs (+$138), drug costs (+$149) and total healthcare costs (+$322) compared to patients in the control group (all p < 0.0001).

LIMITATIONS

This study's limitations include its short observational period and definition of switching for non-medical reasons.

CONCLUSION

Patients who were switched to another SSRI for non-medical reasons after being stabilized on escitalopram used more resources and had higher healthcare costs within 3 months of switching than patients who did not switch.