Efficacy of aripiprazole as adjunctive therapy in major depressive disorder with somatic symptoms: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with clinical and electroencephalography evidence

BACKGROUND

Somatic symptoms, which are common in major depressive disorder (MDD), are associated with a worse prognosis and increased health costs.

AIMS

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluated the efficacy of aripiprazole augmentation in MDD patients with somatic symptoms.

METHODS

In all, 41 MDD patients with somatic symptoms completed the study. Participants who had been on a stable dose of antidepressants for at least 1 month were randomly assigned to receive an 8-week adjunctive treatment with either aripiprazole or placebo. The initiation dose of aripiprazole was 2 mg/day, which was later adjusted to 1-10 mg/day. The primary endpoint was the change in the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised-Somatization (SCL-90-R-SOM) score. We collected quantitative electroencephalogram data and performed spectral analyses to obtain the absolute power of frequency bands.

RESULTS/OUTCOMES

The aripiprazole group (n = 20; 2.98 ± 1.75 mg/day) showed a significant improvement in SCL-90-R-SOM scores compared to the placebo group (n = 21; F = 8.56, p = 0.006), without significant differences in changes in depression and anxiety symptoms. Compared to the control, the aripiprazole group showed a greater decrease in total alpha power (F = 7.03, p = 0.01). Changes in frontal alpha power were positively correlated with changes in SCL-90-R-SOM scores in the aripiprazole group (r = 0.53, p = 0.014).

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Aripiprazole adjunctive to antidepressants in patients with MDD and somatic symptoms improved somatic symptom severity without significant safety concerns, and this improvement correlated with a decrease in total and frontal alpha power.Trial Registration: https://cris.nih.go.kr; identifier: KCT0004607.

Somatic Symptoms and Sleep Disorders: A Literature Review of Their Relationship, Comorbidities and Treatment

This study aimed to investigate the relationship between somatic symptom disorder (SSD) and sleep disorders, following three research questions: (1) How are these disorders correlated? (2) What are the comorbidities reported in these patients? and (3) What are the most effective pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for both conditions? PubMed, Scopus, OVID, Medline, and ProQuest databases were searched for relevant articles published between 1957–2020. Search terms included “somatic symptoms disorder”, “sleep disorders”, “insomnia”, “somatoform”, “somatization”, “therapeutic”, “psychotherapy”, and alternative, formerly used terms for SSD. Forty papers were finally included in the study. Prevalence of insomnia in SSD patients ranged between 20.4–48%, with this being strongly correlated to somatic symptoms and psychosocial disability. The most relevant comorbidities were generalized anxiety disorder, depression, fatigue, negative mood, substance use, orthorexia, alexithymia, anorexia, weight loss, poor eating habits, and acute stress disorder. Patients receiving antidepressant therapy reported significant improvements in insomnia and somatic symptoms. In terms of non-pharmacological interventions, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) showed improvements in sleep outcomes, while the Specialized Treatment for Severe Bodily Distress Syndromes (STreSS) may represent an additional promising option. Future research could include other medical and psychosocial variables to complete the picture of the relationship between sleep disorders and somatic symptoms.

The Changes of Psychometric Profiles after Medical Treatment of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Suggestive of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

Objective

To investigate the relationship of somatization and depression with the degree of lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostate hyperplasia (LUTS/BPH) and changes in psychometric profiles including somatization and depression after treatment of LUTS/BPH.

Methods

Subjects were evaluated at baseline and at week 12 following routine treatment for LUTS/BPH using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) to measure the severity of LUTS/BPH, the Overactive Bladder Symptom Score (OABSS) to measure the severity of OAB, the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) to assess depression, and the Patient Health Questionnaire-15 (PHQ-15) to evaluate somatization. The correlation of somatization and depression with the degree of LUTS/BPH symptoms at baseline and changes in somatization and depression after LUTS/BPH treatment were assessed using relevant statistical analyses.

Results

One hundred and twenty patients agreed to participate in this study, and 101 (84.2%) completed the 12-week trial and responded to the study questionnaires. At baseline, total IPSS score was correlated with PHQ-9 (r=0.475, p=0.005) and PHQ-15 (r=0.596, p<0.001) scores. The results after the 12-week treatment clearly show significant improvement in both PHQ-9 (p <0.001) and PHQ-15 (p=0.019) scores, and the PHQ-9 (r=0.509, p=0.048) and PHQ-15 (r=0.541, p=0.016) scores were positively correlated with total IPSS.

Conclusion

Our preliminary results indicated that severity of LUTS is correlated with severity of somatization and depression. Further, the improvement of LUTS after treatment may have positive impacts on somatization and depression.

Pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders in adults

BACKGROUND

Somatoform disorders are characterised by chronic, medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS). Although different medications are part of treatment routines for people with somatoform disorders in clinics and private practices, there exists no systematic review or meta-analysis on the efficacy and tolerability of these medications. We aimed to synthesise to improve optimal treatment decisions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders (specifically somatisation disorder, undifferentiated somatoform disorder, somatoform autonomic dysfunction, and pain disorder) in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR) (to 17 January 2014). This register includes relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from The Cochrane Library (all years), MEDLINE (1950 to date), EMBASE (1974 to date), and PsycINFO (1967 to date). To identify ongoing trials, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials metaRegister, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry. For grey literature, we searched ProQuest Dissertation & Theses Database, OpenGrey, and BIOSIS Previews. We handsearched conference proceedings and reference lists of potentially relevant papers and systematic reviews and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected RCTs or cluster RCTs of pharmacological interventions versus placebo, treatment as usual, another medication, or a combination of different medications for somatoform disorders in adults. We included people fulfilling standardised diagnostic criteria for somatisation disorder, undifferentiated somatoform disorder, somatoform autonomic dysfunction, or somatoform pain disorder.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author and one research assistant independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes included the severity of MUPS on a continuous measure, and acceptability of treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 26 RCTs (33 reports), with 2159 participants, in the review. They examined the efficacy of different types of antidepressants, the combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic, antipsychotics alone, or natural products (NPs). The duration of the studies ranged between two and 12 weeks.One meta-analysis of placebo-controlled studies showed no clear evidence of a significant difference between tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and placebo for the outcome severity of MUPS (SMD -0.13; 95% CI -0.39 to 0.13; 2 studies, 239 participants; I(2) = 2%; low-quality evidence). For new-generation antidepressants (NGAs), there was very low-quality evidence showing they were effective in reducing the severity of MUPS (SMD -0.91; 95% CI -1.36 to -0.46; 3 studies, 243 participants; I(2) = 63%). For NPs there was low-quality evidence that they were effective in reducing the severity of MUPS (SMD -0.74; 95% CI -0.97 to -0.51; 2 studies, 322 participants; I(2) = 0%).One meta-analysis showed no clear evidence of a difference between TCAs and NGAs for severity of MUPS (SMD -0.16; 95% CI -0.55 to 0.23; 3 studies, 177 participants; I(2) = 42%; low-quality evidence). There was also no difference between NGAs and other NGAs for severity of MUPS (SMD -0.16; 95% CI -0.45 to 0.14; 4 studies, 182 participants; I(2) = 0%).Finally, one meta-analysis comparing selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) with a combination of SSRIs and antipsychotics showed low-quality evidence in favour of combined treatment for severity of MUPS (SMD 0.77; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.22; 2 studies, 107 participants; I(2) = 23%).Differences regarding the acceptability of the treatment (rate of all-cause drop-outs) were neither found between NGAs and placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.61; 2 studies, 163 participants; I(2) = 0%; low-quality evidence) or NPs and placebo (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.78; 3 studies, 506 participants; I(2) = 0%; low-quality evidence); nor between TCAs and other medication (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.59 to 3.72; 8 studies, 556 participants; I(2) =14%; low-quality evidence); nor between antidepressants and the combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.52; 2 studies, 118 participants; I(2) = 0%; low-quality evidence). Percental attrition rates due to adverse effects were high in all antidepressant treatments (0% to 32%), but low for NPs (0% to 1.7%).The risk of bias was high in many domains across studies. Seventeen trials (65.4%) gave no information about random sequence generation and only two (7.7%) provided information about allocation concealment. Eighteen studies (69.2%) revealed a high or unclear risk in blinding participants and study personnel; 23 studies had high risk of bias relating to blinding assessors. For the comparison NGA versus placebo, there was relatively high imprecision and heterogeneity due to one outlier study. Although we identified 26 studies, each comparison only contained a few studies and small numbers of participants so the results were imprecise.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The current review found very low-quality evidence for NGAs and low-quality evidence for NPs being effective in treating somatoform symptoms in adults when compared with placebo. There was some evidence that different classes of antidepressants did not differ in efficacy; however, this was limited and of low to very low quality. These results had serious shortcomings such as the high risk of bias, strong heterogeneity in the data, and small sample sizes. Furthermore, the significant effects of antidepressant treatment have to be balanced against the relatively high rates of adverse effects. Adverse effects produced by medication can have amplifying effects on symptom perceptions, particularly in people focusing on somatic symptoms without medical causes. We can only draw conclusions about short-term efficacy of the pharmacological interventions because no trial included follow-up assessments. For each of the comparisons where there were available data on acceptability rates (NGAs versus placebo, NPs versus placebo, TCAs versus other medication, and antidepressants versus a combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic), no clear differences between the intervention and comparator were found.Future high-quality research should be carried out to determine the effectiveness of medications other than antidepressants, to compare antidepressants more thoroughly, and to follow-up participants over longer periods (the longest follow up was just 12 weeks). Another idea for future research would be to include other outcomes such as functional impairment or dysfunctional behaviours and cognitions as well as the classical outcomes such as symptom severity, depression, or anxiety.

The impact of depression and somatic symptoms on treatment outcomes in patients with chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome: a preliminary study in a naturalistic treatment setting

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of depression and somatic symptoms on treatment outcomes in Korean male patients with chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) attending a routine clinical practice.

METHODS

This was a 12-week prospective observational study (n = 80). The Korean version of the National Institutes of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) to measure the severity of CP/CPPS, the Korean version of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) to assess depression, the Korean version of the Patient Health Questionnaire-15 (PHQ-15) to evaluate somatisation and the Korean version of the EuroQol Questionnaire-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), specifically the EQ-5D utility index and the EQ-5D visual analogue scale (EQ-5D VAS), to assess quality of life, were utilised and given at baseline and week 12. The primary and secondary end-points in this study were changes in the NIH-CPSI total score from baseline to week 12 according to depression and somatisation.

RESULTS

The change in NIH-CPSI total score was significantly higher in those without depression than in those with depression (p = 0.003), with a magnitude of difference of 2.8. The responder rate (a ≥ 4 point decrease in NIH-CPSI total score from baseline) was significantly higher in those without depression (42.9%) than in those with depression (17.2%, p = 0.023). However, significant differences were not observed between the two groups in the other outcome measures or in all study outcomes between subjects with or without somatisation. A logistic regression analysis revealed that the presence or absence of depression may be a principal predictor of response to treatment.

CONCLUSION

These preliminary results indicate that depression may have a negative impact on treatment outcome and is a likely predictor of response to treatment in patients with CP/CPPS. However, additional studies with adequate power and improved design are necessary to further support the present findings.

[Psychopharmacological treatment in patients with somatoform disorders and functional body syndromes]

Somatoform disorders and functional body syndromes define a major, diagnostically heterogeneous group of patients with medically unexplained physical symptoms. Psychopharmacological approaches can be derived from the conceptualization of somatoform symptoms and syndromes within a biopsychosocial model. The survey presented focuses on randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled studies. Antidepressants show a statistically and clinically relevant impact on many somatoform symptoms. In special reference to pain symptoms serotonergic and noradrenergic antidepressants seem to mediate a more favorable effect than selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. For some functional body syndromes, e.g. irritable bowel syndrome and fibromyalgia, a major analgesic effect of antidepressants can be underlined as well. The empirical data for fibromyalgia, however, seem to be more convincing than for irritable bowel syndrome. Pregabalin holds an empirically well established position in the treatment of fibromyalgia. As yet there is no convincing psychopharmacological strategy for chronic fatigue syndrome. Probably due to the inherent relationships to anxiety, obsessive-compulsive and depressive disorders, both hypochondria and body dysmorphic disorder can be positively treated by serotonergic antidepressants as well.

Psychopharmacotherapy of somatic symptoms disorders

Somatic symptoms are often common causes for medical consultation. The treatment of somatic symptoms disorders is complicated by lack of boundary, conceptual clarity, and overemphasis on psychosocial causation and effectiveness of psychological treatments. In clinical practice all classes of psychotropics are used to treat somatic symptoms disorder. Five principal groups of drugs such as tricyclic antidepressants (TCA), serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI), serotonin and noradrenalin reuptake inhibitors (SNRI), atypical antipsychotics and herbal medication are systematically studied. The evidence indicates that all five groups are effective in a wide range of disorders. All classes of antidepressants seem to be effective against somatoform and related disorders. SSRIs are more effective against hypochondriasis and body dysmorphic disorder (BDD), and SNRIs appear to be more effective than other antidepressants when pain is the predominant symptom. Research leaves many unanswered questions regarding dosing, duration of treatment, sustainability of improvement in the long term and differential response to different class drugs. Further studies need to focus on treatments based on clinical features/psychopathology and collaborative research with other specialists in understanding the relation of somatic symptom disorders and functional somatic syndromes (FSS), and comparing psychotropics and non-psychotropics and combinations treatments.

Desvenlafaxine succinate: a newer antidepressant for the treatment of depression and somatic symptoms

Desvenlafaxine succinate (DVS) is one of several serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs). Others are venlafaxine hydrochloride, milnacipran, and duloxetine. Desvenlafaxine has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) based on a number of randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials. Clinical studies have investigated the efficacy of DVS in doses ranging from 50 to 400 mg/day for the treatment of MDD in adult outpatients. The effects of DVS 50 mg/day have been clearly distinguished from placebo in the reduction of MDD symptoms in such clinical trials. No additional therapeutic benefits were found at doses > 50 mg/day. The recommended dose of DVS ranges from 50 to 100 mg. Desvenlafaxine is currently the third SNRI approved by the FDA for this indication. Preliminary evidence also suggests the clinical usefulness of DVS in the treatment of vasomotor symptoms of menopause, anxiety symptoms, and painful physical symptoms. The modified pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of DVS differentiate this drug from the original product, venlafaxine. Significant points of difference, compared with venlafaxine, are once-daily dosing and the achievement of steady-state plasma concentrations within 4 to 5 days. To summarize, current evidence indicates that DVS has proven efficacy, acceptable safety and tolerability profiles, convenient dosing, and minimal impact on the cytochrome P450 enzyme system. A reduced risk for pharmacokinetic drug interactions is a potential advantage over other selective serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors. Desvenlafaxine succinate has demonstrated its efficacy for treating MDD but its variable efficacy, as shown in individual studies, limited long-term data, and its different risk-to-benefit ratio compared with earlier antidepressants, means that further investigation of this drug is necessary.

Desvenlafaxine: a new antidepressant or just another one?

Desvenlafaxine (DVS) is a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) with a different pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile to venlafaxine. It was approved in February 2008 by the United States Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) based on a number of randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials demonstrating efficacy and safety for patients with MDD. Current evidence indicates that DVS has proven efficacy, acceptable safety and tolerability profiles, convenient once-daily dosing and minimal impact on cytochrome P450 enzyme system and adverse event-prone neuroreceptors. As with all monoamine-based antidepressants, DVS has mixed efficacy results from individual studies, unestablished dosing strategies and limited long-term data, and comparative efficacy/safety with other existing antidepressants should be further investigated. Preliminary evidence also suggests the clinical usefulness of DVS in the treatment of vasomotor symptoms of menopause, anxiety symptoms and painful physical symptoms, although only MDD is the approved indication.

Mirtazapine: a review of its use in major depression and other psychiatric disorders

Mirtazapine (Remeron, Zispin) is a noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressant (NaSSA) that is approved in many counties for use in the treatment of major depression. Monotherapy with mirtazapine 15-45 mg/day leads to rapid and sustained improvements in depressive symptoms in patients with major depression, including the elderly. It is as effective as other antidepressants and may have a more rapid onset of action than selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Furthermore, it may also have a higher sustained remission rate than amitriptyline. Preliminary data suggest that mirtazapine may also be effective in the treatment of anxiety disorders (including post-traumatic stress disorder, panic disorder and social anxiety disorder), obsessive-compulsive disorder, undifferentiated somatoform disorder and, as add-on therapy, in schizophrenia, although large, well designed trials are needed to confirm these findings. Mirtazapine is generally well tolerated in patients with depression. In conclusion, mirtazapine is an effective antidepressant for the treatment of major depression and also has the potential to be of use in other psychiatric indications.