A double-blind randomized comparison of nortriptyline plus perphenazine versus nortriptyline plus placebo in the treatment of psychotic depression in late life

Pharmacological treatments for psychotic depression: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There are no recommendations based on the efficacy of specific drugs for the treatment of psychotic depression. To address this evidence gap, we did a network meta-analysis to assess and compare the efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments for psychotic depression.

METHODS

In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov, CENTRAL, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to Nov 23, 2023 for randomised controlled trials published in any language that assessed pharmacological treatments for individuals of any age with a diagnosis of a major depressive episode with psychotic features, in the context of major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder in any setting. We excluded continuation or maintenance trials. We screened the study titles and abstracts identified, and we extracted data from relevant studies after full-text review. If full data were not available, we requested data from study authors twice. We analysed treatments for individual drugs (or drug combinations) and by grouping them on the basis of mechanisms of action. The primary outcomes were response rate (ie, the proportion of participants who responded to treatment) and acceptability (ie, the proportion who discontinued treatment for any reason). We calculated risk ratios and did separate frequentist network meta-analyses by using random-effects models. The risk of bias of individual studies was assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the confidence in the evidence with the Confidence-In-Network-Meta-Analysis (CINeMA). This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42023392926.

FINDINGS

Of 6313 reports identified, 16 randomised controlled trials were included in the systematic review, and 14 were included in the network meta-analyses. The 16 trials included 1161 people with psychotic depression (mean age 50·5 years [SD 11·4]). 516 (44·4%) participants were female and 422 (36·3%) were male; sex data were not available for the other 223 (19·2%). 489 (42·1%) participants were White, 47 (4·0%) were African American, and 12 (1·0%) were Asian; race or ethnicity data were not available for the other 613 (52·8%). Only the combination of fluoxetine plus olanzapine was associated with a higher proportion of participants with a treatment response compared with placebo (risk ratio 1·91 [95% CI 1·27-2·85]), with no differences in terms of safety outcomes compared with placebo. When treatments were grouped by mechanism of action, the combination of a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor with a second-generation antipsychotic was associated with a higher proportion of treatment responses than was placebo (1·89 [1·17-3·04]), with no differences in terms of safety outcomes. In head-to-head comparisons of active treatments, a significantly higher proportion of participants had a response to amitriptyline plus perphenazine (3·61 [1·23-10·56]) and amoxapine (3·14 [1·01-9·80]) than to perphenazine, and to fluoxetine plus olanzapine compared with olanzapine alone (1·60 [1·09-2·34]). Venlafaxine, venlafaxine plus quetiapine (2·25 [1·09-4·63]), and imipramine (1·95 [1·01-3·79]) were also associated with a higher proportion of treatment responses overall. In head-to-head comparisons grouped by mechanism of action, antipsychotic plus antidepressant combinations consistently outperformed monotherapies from either drug class in terms of the proportion of participants with treatment responses. Heterogeneity was low. No high-risk instances were identified in the bias assessment for our primary outcomes.

INTERPRETATION

According to the available evidence, the combination of a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and a second-generation antipsychotic-and particularly of fluoxetine and olanzapine-could be the optimal treatment choice for psychotic depression. These findings should be taken into account in the development of clinical practice guidelines. However, these conclusions should be interpreted cautiously in view of the low number of included studies and the limitations of these studies.

FUNDING

None.

Pharmacological treatment for psychotic depression

BACKGROUND

Evidence is limited regarding the most effective pharmacological treatment for psychotic depression: monotherapy with an antidepressant, monotherapy with an antipsychotic, another treatment (e.g. mifepristone), or combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic. This is an update of a review first published in 2005 and last updated in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

1. To compare the clinical efficacy of pharmacological treatments for patients with an acute psychotic depression: antidepressant monotherapy, antipsychotic monotherapy, mifepristone monotherapy, and the combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic versus placebo and/or each other. 2. To assess whether differences in response to treatment in the current episode are related to non-response to prior treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

A search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library; the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR); Ovid MEDLINE (1950-); Embase (1974-); and PsycINFO (1960-) was conducted on 21 February 2020. Reference lists of all included studies and related reviews were screened and key study authors contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included participants with acute major depression with psychotic features, as well as RCTs consisting of participants with acute major depression with or without psychotic features, that reported separately on the subgroup of participants with psychotic features.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in the included studies, according to criteria from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Data were entered into RevMan 5.1. We used intention-to-treat data. Primary outcomes were clinical response for efficacy and overall dropout rate for harm/tolerance. Secondary outcome were remission of depression, change from baseline severity score, quality of life, and dropout rate due to adverse effects. For dichotomous efficacy outcomes (i.e. response and overall dropout), risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.  Regarding the primary outcome of harm, only overall dropout rates were available for all studies. If the study did not report any of the response criteria as defined above, remission as defined here could be used as an alternative. For continuously distributed outcomes, it was not possible to extract data from the RCTs.  MAIN RESULTS: The search identified 3947 abstracts, but only 12 RCTs with a total of 929 participants could be included in the review. Because of clinical heterogeneity, few meta-analyses were possible. The main outcome was reduction in severity (response) of depression, not of psychosis. For depression response, we found no evidence of a difference between antidepressant and placebo (RR 8.40, 95% CI 0.50 to 142.27; participants = 27, studies = 1; very low-certainty evidence) or between antipsychotic and placebo (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.73; participants = 201, studies = 2; very low-certainty evidence). Furthermore, we found no evidence of a difference in overall dropouts with antidepressant (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.34 to 4.51; participants = 27, studies = 1; very low-certainty evidence) or antipsychotic monotherapy (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.08; participants = 201, studies = 2; very low-certainty evidence). No evidence suggests a difference in depression response (RR 2.09, 95% CI 0.64 to 6.82; participants = 36, studies = 1; very low-certainty evidence) or overall dropouts (RR 1.79, 95% CI 0.18 to 18.02; participants = 36, studies = 1; very low-certainty evidence) between antidepressant and antipsychotic. For depression response, low- to very low-certainty evidence suggests that the combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic may be more effective than antipsychotic monotherapy (RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.38; participants = 447, studies = 4), more effective than antidepressant monotherapy (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.80; participants = 245, studies = 5), and more effective than placebo (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.82; participants = 148, studies = 2). Very low-certainty evidence suggests no difference in overall dropouts between the combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic versus antipsychotic monotherapy (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.01; participants = 447, studies = 4), antidepressant monotherapy (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.50; participants = 245, studies = 5), or placebo alone (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.18; participants = 148, studies = 2). No study measured change in depression severity from baseline, quality of life, or dropouts due to adverse events. We found no RCTs with mifepristone that fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Risk of bias is considerable: we noted differences between studies with regards to diagnosis, uncertainties around randomisation and allocation concealment, treatment interventions (pharmacological differences between various antidepressants and antipsychotics), and outcome criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Psychotic depression is heavily under-studied, limiting confidence in the conclusions drawn. Some evidence indicates that combination therapy with an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic is more effective than either treatment alone or placebo. Evidence is limited for treatment with an antidepressant alone or with an antipsychotic alone. Evidence for efficacy of mifepristone is lacking.

Outcome of a three-phase treatment algorithm for inpatients with melancholic depression

BACKGROUND

In patients suffering from major depressive disorder, non-response to initial antidepressant monotherapy is relatively common. The use of treatment algorithms may optimize and enhance treatment outcome.

METHODS

A single-center 3-phase treatment algorithm was evaluated for inpatients with major depressive disorder, i.e. phase I (n = 85): 7 weeks optimal antidepressant monotherapy (imipramine or venlafaxine); phase II (n = 39): 4 weeks subsequent plasma level-targeted dose lithium addition in case of insufficient improvement of antidepressant monotherapy; and phase III (n = 8): subsequent electroconvulsive therapy in case of insufficient improvement of antidepressant‑lithium treatment. Overall feasibility of the 3-phase algorithm was determined by the number of dropouts, and overall efficacy was evaluated using weekly scores on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) during the treatment phases of the algorithm. This paper is based on an RCT comparing the two antidepressants in phase I and adding lithium in phase II.

RESULTS

Of the 85 patients analyzed, overall dropout during the 3-phase treatment algorithm was 24 (28%) patients. When analyzing the 3-phase treatment algorithm on a modified intention-to-treat basis, 39 (46%) patients achieved complete remission (HAM-D score ≤ 7) by the end of the algorithm. Regarding response (HAM-D score reduction ≥50%): of the 85 patients, 60 (71%) were responders by the end of the algorithm.

CONCLUSION

The favorable outcome of the 3-phase treatment algorithm emphasizes the importance of pursuing stepwise antidepressant treatment in patients who are nonresponsive to the first antidepressant.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study protocol is registered at http://www.controlled-trials.com, "Pharmacological Treatment of Depression" (identifier: ISRCTN73221288).

Medication Adherence and Persistence in Patients with Severe Major Depressive Disorder with Psychotic Features: Antidepressant and Second-Generation Antipsychotic Therapy Versus Antidepressant Monotherapy

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorder with psychotic features, or psychotic depression, is a severe mental health disorder often associated with a worse depression-related symptom profile when compared with major depressive disorder without psychotic features. While combination pharmacotherapy with an antidepressant and an antipsychotic is recommended as first-line therapy, antidepressant monotherapy has been found to be useful and efficacious in psychotic depression.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the rates of antidepressant adherence and antidepressant persistence in Texas Medicaid patients with psychotic depression who used antidepressant plus second-generation antipsychotic (AD/SGA) therapy or antidepressant (AD) monotherapy.

METHODS

Using Texas Medicaid prescription and medical claims data from September 2007 to December 2012, adult patients aged 18-63 years were included if they had no confounding psychiatric disorders, no antidepressant claims during a 6-month pre-index period, and at least 1 diagnosis for severe major depressive disorder with psychotic features (ICD-9-CM codes 296.24 and 296.34). The first claim date for an antidepressant served as the index date. All patients were required to have at least 2 antidepressant claims, and those in the AD/SGA cohort were required to have 2 or more claims for an SGA. Study covariates included age, gender, race/ethnicity, residence, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score, and tobacco use/dependence. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, univariate analyses, logistic regression, and Cox proportional hazards regression.

RESULTS

A total of 926 patients met study criteria (AD cohort = 510; AD/SGA cohort = 416). The overall sample had a mean [±SD] age of 40.5 [±13.2] years and was primarily female (66.8%) and non-Caucasian (74.8%). When compared with the AD cohort, patients in the AD/SGA cohort had a 52.3% higher likelihood of being adherent to antidepressant therapy based on proportion of days covered (PDC; OR = 1.523; 95% CI = 1.129-2.053; P = 0.006). Similarly, antidepressant adherence was 42.0% higher for the AD/SGA cohort based on medication possession ratio (MPR; OR = 1.420; 95% CI = 1.062-1.898; P = 0.018). Younger patients, African Americans, and tobacco users/dependents had significantly worse likelihoods of antidepressant medication adherence based on PDC and MPR. The risk of antidepressant nonpersistence was 23.2% lower for patients in the AD/SGA cohort (HR = 0.768; 95% CI = 0.659-0.896; P = 0.001), compared with those in the AD cohort. Antidepressant nonpersistence was significantly higher in younger patients, African Americans, Hispanics, and tobacco users/dependents.

CONCLUSIONS

Better antidepressant adherence and persistence outcomes were associated with combination pharmacotherapy with an AD and an SGA antipsychotic. This study provides real-world estimates that support the current first-line treatment recommendations for psychotic depression; however, it should be noted that the majority of study patients used AD therapy only. Future research in psychotic depression is needed.

DISCLOSURES

Kim-Romo received funding to conduct this study from the PhRMA Foundation Pre-Doctoral Fellowship in Health Outcomes. Rascati, Richards, Ford, Wilson, and Beretvas declare no conflict of interest in relation to this manuscript. Kim-Romo and Rascati collaborated on the study design, data analysis, study interpretation, and writing of this manuscript. Richards, Ford, Wilson, and Beretvas provided critical evaluation of the study design, analysis, and interpretation, as well as edited this manuscript.

Rating scales measuring the severity of psychotic depression

OBJECTIVE

Unipolar psychotic depression (PD) is a severe and debilitating syndrome, which requires intensive monitoring. The objective of this study was to provide an overview of the rating scales used to assess illness severity in PD.

METHOD

Selective review of publications reporting results on non-self-rated, symptom-based rating scales utilized to measure symptom severity in PD. The clinical and psychometric validity of the identified rating scales was reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 14 rating scales meeting the predefined criteria were included in the review. These scales grouped into the following categories: (i) rating scales predominantly covering depressive symptoms, (ii) rating scales predominantly covering psychotic symptoms, (iii) rating scales covering delusions, and (iv) rating scales covering PD. For the vast majority of the scales, the clinical and psychometric validity had not been tested empirically. The only exception from this general tendency was the 11-item Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale (PDAS), which was developed specifically to assess the severity of PD.

CONCLUSION

In PD, the PDAS represents the only empirically derived rating scale for the measurement of overall severity of illness. The PDAS should be considered in future studies of PD and in clinical practice.

Pharmacological treatment for psychotic depression

BACKGROUND

Evidence is limited regarding the most effective pharmacological treatment for psychotic depression: combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic, monotherapy with an antidepressant or monotherapy with an antipsychotic. This is an update of a review first published in 2005 and last updated in 2009.

OBJECTIVES

1. To compare the clinical efficacy of pharmacological treatments for patients with an acute psychotic depression: antidepressant monotherapy, antipsychotic monotherapy and the combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic, compared with each other and/or with placebo.2. To assess whether differences in response to treatment in the current episode are related to non-response to prior treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

A search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group Register (CCDANCTR) was carried out (to 12 April 2013). These registers include reports of randomised controlled trials from the following bibliographic databases: EMBASE (1970-), MEDLINE (1950-) and PsycINFO (1960-). Reference lists of all studies and related reviews were screened and key authors contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included participants with acute major depression with psychotic features, as well as RCTs consisting of participants with acute major depression with or without psychotic features, that reported separately on the subgroup of participants with psychotic features.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in the included studies, according to the criteria of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Data were entered into RevMan 5.1. We used intention-to-treat data. For dichotomous efficacy outcomes, the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. For continuously distributed outcomes, it was not possible to extract data from the RCTs. Regarding the primary outcome of harm, only overall dropout rates were available for all studies.

MAIN RESULTS

The search identified 3659 abstracts, but only 12 RCTs with a total of 929 participants could be included in the review. Because of clinical heterogeneity, few meta-analyses were possible. The main outcome was reduction of severity (response) of depression, not of psychosis.We found no evidence for the efficacy of monotherapy with an antidepressant or an antipsychotic.However, evidence suggests that the combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic is more effective than antidepressant monotherapy (three RCTs; RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.98, P = 0.006), more effective than antipsychotic monotherapy (four RCTs; RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.38, P = 0.00001) and more effective than placebo (two identical RCTs; RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.82, P = 0.003).Risk of bias is considerable: there were differences between studies with regard to diagnosis, uncertainties around randomisation and allocation concealment, differences in treatment interventions (pharmacological differences between the various antidepressants and antipsychotics) and different outcome criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Psychotic depression is heavily understudied, limiting confidence in the conclusions drawn. Some evidence indicates that combination therapy with an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic is more effective than either treatment alone or placebo. Evidence is limited for treatment with an antidepressant alone or with an antipsychotic alone.

Psychotic major depression in older people: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to systematically review available evidence relevant to the following issues: (1) whether psychotic major depression (PMD) in older people differs in overall severity from non-PMD, besides the presence of psychotic symptoms; (2) whether it constitutes a distinct clinical entity from non-PMD; and (3) whether it differs from PMD in younger adults.

DESIGN

A computerized MEDLINE, PsycINFO and the entire Cochrane Library search has been performed in June 2013 for prospective controlled studies investigating PMD features in older people.

RESULTS

Thirty-five relevant studies were identified. PMD in older people compared with non-PMD has been shown to present with overall more severe depressive symptomatology, more psychomotor disturbance, more guilt feelings, more depressive episodes with psychosis, worse prognosis, more severe executive dysfunction associated with frontal lobe atrophy, and lower serum dopamine β-hydroxylase activity. No differences in the efficacy of an antidepressant plus antipsychotic combination versus antidepressant monotherapy in the acute treatment as well as in the maintenance treatment were found. PMD in older patients is characterized by more somatic complaints and delusions of hypochondriacaland impending disaster content and by a lower comorbidity with anxiety disorders compared with PMD in younger adults.

CONCLUSIONS

Psychotic major depression in older people is associated with higher severity in most clinically important key features than in non-PMD. However, available evidence is still insufficient for the conclusive elucidation of its nosological status. Finally, the differences between PMD in older and younger patients can be attributed to biological and psychosocial changes of old age.

[Integral Care Guide for Early Detection and Diagnosis of Depressive Episodes and Recurrent Depressive Disorder in Adults. Integral Attention of Adults with a Diagnosis of Depressive Episodes and Recurrent Depressive Disorder: Part III: Treatment of Resistant Depression and Psychotic Depression, Occupational Therapy and Day Hospital Treatment]

INTRODUCTION

This article presents recommendations based on the evidence gathered to answer a series of clinical questions concerning the depressive episode and the recurrent depressive disorder. Emphasis was given to general treatment issues of resistant depression and psychotic depression, occupational therapy and day hospital treatment so as to grant diagnosed adult patients the health care parameters based on the best and more updated evidence available and achieve minimum quality standards.

METHODOLOGY

A practical clinical guide was elaborated according to standards of the Methodological Guide of the Ministry of Social Protection. Recommendation from NICE90 and CANMAT guides were adopted and updated so as to answer the questions posed while de novo questions were developed.

RESULTS

Recommendations 23-25 corresponding to the management of depression are presented.

Combination pharmacotherapy in unipolar depression

It is estimated that between 60 and 80% of those with major depressive disorder do not achieve full symptomatic remission from first-line antidepressant monotherapy. Residual depressive symptoms substantially impair quality of life and add to the risk of recurrence. It is now clear that depression would benefit from more vigorous treatment, in order to ameliorate its disease burden. While there are established algorithms in situations of treatment resistance, the use of combination pharmacotherapy in unipolar depression is a relatively under-investigated area of treatment and may be an effective and tolerable strategy that maximizes the available resources. This paper reviews the current evidence for combination pharmacotherapy in unipolar depression and discusses its clinical applications.

Pharmacological treatment for psychotic depression

BACKGROUND

Evidence is limited regarding the most effective pharmacological treatment for psychotic depression: combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic, monotherapy with an antidepressant or monotherapy with an antipsychotic. This is an update of a review first published in 2005 and last updated in 2009.

OBJECTIVES

1. To compare the clinical efficacy of pharmacological treatments for patients with an acute psychotic depression: antidepressant monotherapy, antipsychotic monotherapy and the combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic, compared with each other and/or with placebo.2. To assess whether differences in response to treatment in the current episode are related to non-response to prior treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

A search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group Register (CCDANCTR) was carried out (to 12 April 2013). These registers include reports of randomised controlled trials from the following bibliographic databases: EMBASE (1970-), MEDLINE (1950-) and PsycINFO (1960-). Reference lists of all studies and related reviews were screened and key authors contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included participants with acute major depression with psychotic features, as well as RCTs consisting of participants with acute major depression with or without psychotic features, that reported separately on the subgroup of participants with psychotic features.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in the included studies, according to the criteria of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Data were entered into RevMan 5.1. We used intention-to-treat data. For dichotomous efficacy outcomes, the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. For continuously distributed outcomes, it was not possible to extract data from the RCTs. Regarding the primary outcome of harm, only overall dropout rates were available for all studies.

MAIN RESULTS

The search identified 3659 abstracts, but only 12 RCTs with a total of 929 participants could be included in the review. Because of clinical heterogeneity, few meta-analyses were possible. The main outcome was reduction of severity (response) of depression, not of psychosis.We found no evidence for the efficacy of monotherapy with an antidepressant or an antipsychotic.However, evidence suggests that the combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic is more effective than antidepressant monotherapy (three RCTs; RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.98, P = 0.006), more effective than antipsychotic monotherapy (four RCTs; RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.38, P = 0.00001) and more effective than placebo (two identical RCTs; RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.82, P = 0.003).Risk of bias is considerable: there were differences between studies with regard to diagnosis, uncertainties around randomisation and allocation concealment, differences in treatment interventions (pharmacological differences between the various antidepressants and antipsychotics) and different outcome criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Psychotic depression is heavily understudied, limiting confidence in the conclusions drawn. Some evidence indicates that combination therapy with an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic is more effective than either treatment alone or placebo. Evidence is limited for treatment with an antidepressant alone or with an antipsychotic alone.

Challenges in the treatment of major depressive disorder with psychotic features

Psychotic depression is associated with significant morbidity and mortality but is underdiagnosed and undertreated. In recent years, there have been several studies that have increased our knowledge regarding the optimal treatment of patients with psychotic depression. The combination of an antidepressant and antipsychotic is significantly more effective than either antidepressant monotherapy or antipsychotic monotherapy for the acute treatment of psychotic depression. Most treatment guidelines recommend either the combination of an antidepressant with an antipsychotic or ECT for the treatment of an acute episode of unipolar psychotic depression. The optimal maintenance treatment after a person responds to either the antidepressant/antipsychotic combination or the ECT is unclear particularly as it pertains to length of time the patient needs to take the antipsychotic medication. Little is known regarding the optimal treatment of a patient with bipolar disorder who has an episode of psychotic depression or the clinical characteristics of responders to medication treatments vs ECT treatments.

World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) guidelines for biological treatment of unipolar depressive disorders, part 1: update 2013 on the acute and continuation treatment of unipolar depressive disorders

OBJECTIVES

This 2013 update of the practice guidelines for the biological treatment of unipolar depressive disorders was developed by an international Task Force of the World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP). The goal has been to systematically review all available evidence pertaining to the treatment of unipolar depressive disorders, and to produce a series of practice recommendations that are clinically and scientifically meaningful based on the available evidence. The guidelines are intended for use by all physicians seeing and treating patients with these conditions.

METHODS

The 2013 update was conducted by a systematic update literature search and appraisal. All recommendations were approved by the Guidelines Task Force.

RESULTS

This first part of the guidelines (Part 1) covers disease definition, classification, epidemiology, and course of unipolar depressive disorders, as well as the management of the acute and continuation phase treatment. It is primarily concerned with the biological treatment (including antidepressants, other psychopharmacological medications, electroconvulsive therapy, light therapy, adjunctive and novel therapeutic strategies) of adults.

CONCLUSIONS

To date, there is a variety of evidence-based antidepressant treatment options available. Nevertheless there is still a substantial proportion of patients not achieving full remission. In addition, somatic and psychiatric comorbidities and other special circumstances need to be more thoroughly investigated. Therefore, further high-quality informative randomized controlled trials are urgently needed.

Antidepressants in elderly: metaregression of double-blind, randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Depression is common in the elderly and in the last few years this led to a significant increase in antidepressant prescription rates. However, little is known about antidepressant efficacy profile in relation with socio-demographic and clinical features in this population. The aim of the present study was to define the most suitable socio-demographic and clinical profile for the use of antidepressant treatments in late-life depression.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focused on efficacy of antidepressants of all classes in major depressed elderly subjects (>60 years old). Reviews and meta-analyses focusing on this topic have been considered as well. Thirty-four RCTs were included and socio-demographic and clinical features were investigated via meta-regression analysis as moderators of efficacy measures (standardized mean difference based on Hamilton Depressive Rating Scale and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale).

RESULTS

A lower rate of response to antidepressants of all classes was found in patients of male gender, of older age, and with a longer mean duration of the current episode. On the contrary, a higher rate of response was found in patients with a higher baseline severity and at their first episode of illness. Subsamples treated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors alone yielded similar results.

LIMITATIONS

RCTs only have been included.

CONCLUSIONS

A number of socio-demographic and clinical features have been found to moderate antidepressant efficacy in elderly population. Those variables could help clinicians for a more individualized treatment.

Are antipsychotics or antidepressants needed for psychotic depression? A systematic review and meta-analysis of trials comparing antidepressant or antipsychotic monotherapy with combination treatment

OBJECTIVE

To perform a meta-analysis of antidepressant-antipsychotic cotreatment versus antidepressant or antipsychotic monotherapy for psychotic depression.

DATA SOURCES

We performed an electronic search (from inception of databases until February 28, 2011) in PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO, without language or time restrictions. Search terms were (psychosis OR psychotic OR hallucinations OR hallucinating OR delusions OR delusional) AND (depression OR depressed OR major depressive disorder) AND (random OR randomized OR randomly).

STUDY SELECTION

Eight randomized, placebo-controlled acute-phase studies in adults (N = 762) with standardized criteria-defined psychotic depression (including Research Diagnostic Criteria, DSM-III, DSM-IV, or ICD-10) were meta-analyzed, yielding 10 comparisons. Antidepressant-antipsychotic cotreatment was compared in 5 trials with 6 treatment arms (n = 337) with antidepressant monotherapy and in 4 trials with 4 treatment arms (n = 447) with antipsychotic monotherapy.

DATA EXTRACTION

Primary outcome was study-defined inefficacy; secondary outcomes included all-cause discontinuation, specific psychopathology ratings, and side effects. Using random effects models, we calculated relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), number-needed-to-treat/harm (NNT/NNH), and effect size (ES).

RESULTS

Antidepressant-antipsychotic cotreatment outperformed antidepressant monotherapy regarding less study-defined inefficacy (no. of comparisons = 6; n = 378; RR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98; P = .03; heterogeneity [I2] = 34%) (NNT = 7; 95% CI, 4-20; P = .009) and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scores (no. of comparisons = 4; n = 289; ES = -0.25; 95% CI, -0.49 to -0.02; P = .03; I2 = 0%), with trend-level superiority for depression ratings (no. of comparisons = 5; n = 324; ES = -0.20; 95% CI, -0.44 to 0.03; P = .09; I2 = 10%), but not regarding psychosis ratings (no. of comparisons = 3; n = 161; ES = -0.24; 95% CI, -0.85 to 0.38; P = .45; I2 = 70%). Antidepressant-antipsychotic cotreatment also outperformed antipsychotic monotherapy regarding less study-defined inefficacy (no. of comparisons = 4; n = 447; RR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.63-0.84; P < .0001; I2 = 0%) (NNT = 5; 95% CI, 4-8; P < .0001) and depression ratings (no. of comparisons = 4; n = 428; ES = -0.49; 95% CI, -0.75 to -0.23; P = .0002; I2 = 27%), while anxiety (P = .11) and psychosis (P = .06) ratings only trended toward favoring cotreatment. All-cause discontinuation and reported side-effect rates were similar, except for more somnolence with antidepressant-antipsychotic cotreatment versus antidepressants (P = .02). Only 1 open-label, 4-month extension study (n = 59) assessed maintenance/relapse-prevention efficacy of antidepressant-antipsychotic cotreatment versus antidepressant monotherapy, without group differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Antidepressant-antipsychotic cotreatment was superior to monotherapy with either drug class in the acute treatment of psychotic depression. These results support recent treatment guidelines, but more studies are needed to assess specific combinations and maintenance/relapse-prevention efficacy.

General and comparative efficacy and effectiveness of antidepressants in the acute treatment of depressive disorders: a report by the WPA section of pharmacopsychiatry

Current gold standard approaches to the treatment of depression include pharmacotherapeutic and psychotherapeutic interventions with social support. Due to current controversies concerning the efficacy of antidepressants in randomized controlled trials, the generalizability of study findings to wider clinical practice and the increasing importance of socioeconomic considerations, it seems timely to address the uncertainty of concerned patients and relatives, and their treating psychiatrists and general practitioners. We therefore discuss both the efficacy and clinical effectiveness of antidepressants in the treatment of depressive disorders. We explain and clarify useful measures for assessing clinically meaningful antidepressant treatment effects and the types of studies that are useful for addressing uncertainties. This includes considerations of methodological issues in randomized controlled studies, meta-analyses, and effectiveness studies. Furthermore, we summarize the differential efficacy and effectiveness of antidepressants with distinct pharmacodynamic properties, and differences between studies using antidepressants and/or psychotherapy. We also address the differential effectiveness of antidepressant drugs with differing modes of action and in varying subtypes of depressive disorder. After highlighting the clinical usefulness of treatment algorithms and the divergent biological, psychological, and clinical efforts to predict the effectiveness of antidepressant treatments, we conclude that the spectrum of different antidepressant treatments has broadened over the last few decades. The efficacy and clinical effectiveness of antidepressants is statistically significant, clinically relevant, and proven repeatedly. Further optimization of treatment can be helped by clearly structured treatment algorithms and the implementation of psychotherapeutic interventions. Modern individualized antidepressant treatment is in most cases a well-tolerated and efficacious approach to minimize the negative impact of otherwise potentially devastating and life-threatening outcomes in depressive disorders.

Psychoticism and paranoid ideation in patients with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder: prevalence, response to treatment, and impact on short- and long-term treatment outcome

Objective/Introduction: We sought to characterize the impact of the 90-item Symptom Checklist (SCL-90) subscales for paranoid ideation (PI) and psychoticism (P) in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), on acute antidepressant response and on relapse prevention.

METHODS

Subjects with Structured Clinical Interview for DSM Disorders-diagnosed nonpsychotic MDD were recruited into a clinical trial of open-label fluoxetine 10-60 mg/day for 12 weeks, followed by double-blind randomization of responders (n=262) to fluoxetine continuation or placebo for 12 months. PI and P were assessed with the patient-rated SCL-90. The association of these symptoms with response to treatment was assessed by logistic regression.

RESULTS

We found significant decreases in PI and P during acute treatment phase for fluoxetine responders and nonresponders, although only 10.3% and 7.5% of patients experienced a >50% reduction in PI and P scores, respectively. Neither PI nor P scores significantly predicted time to relapse. P scores predicted a lower response rate to treatment with fluoxetine.

DISCUSSION

The results of the present study suggest that there is a significant relationship between the presence of psychoticism in patients with nonpsychotic MDD, and the likelihood of overall depressive symptom improvement following a trial of monotherapy with fluoxetine.

CONCLUSION

An increased burden of psychoticism in depressed subjects may confer poorer response to fluoxetine, but not increased risk of relapse among fluoxetine responders.

Treatment of unipolar psychotic depression: the use of evidence in practice guidelines

INTRODUCTION

In a recent meta-analysis we found no evidence that an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic is more effective than an antidepressant alone in unipolar psychotic depression. However, most current guidelines recommend the combination over an antidepressant alone.

METHOD

We assessed available guidelines by the AGREE instrument and discuss their recommendations in relation to the evidence as referred to in the guidelines.

RESULTS

The UK-NICE guideline had the highest AGREE quality score, followed by the Dutch, Australian, and US-APA guidelines. Guidelines are not always consistent with at date of publication available evidence and (with exception of the UK-NICE and Dutch guidelines) also not with the in that guideline referred evidence.

CONCLUSION

Physicians (and patients) should be aware that in guidelines treatment recommendations may be less evidence-based than asserted, even when treatment recommendations are stated as being based on the highest level of evidence.

Treatment of unipolar psychotic depression: a randomized, double-blind study comparing imipramine, venlafaxine, and venlafaxine plus quetiapine

OBJECTIVE

It remains unclear whether unipolar psychotic depression should be treated with an antidepressant and an antipsychotic or with an antidepressant alone.

METHOD

In a multi-center RCT, 122 patients (18-65 years) with DSM-IV-TR psychotic major depression and HAM-D-17 > or = 18 were randomized to 7 weeks imipramine (plasma-levels 200-300 microg/l), venlafaxine (375 mg/day) or venlafaxine-quetiapine (375 mg/day, 600 mg/day). Primary outcome was response on HAM-D-17. Secondary outcomes were response on CGI and remission (HAM-D-17).

RESULTS

Venlafaxine-quetiapine was more effective than venlafaxine with no significant differences between venlafaxine-quetiapine and imipramine, or between imipramine and venlafaxine. Secondary outcomes followed the same pattern.

CONCLUSION

That unipolar psychotic depression should be treated with a combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic and not with an antidepressant alone, can be considered evidence based with regard to venlafaxine-quetiapine vs. venlafaxine monotherapy. Whether this is also the case for imipramine monotherapy is likely, but cannot be concluded from the data.

A double-blind randomized controlled trial of olanzapine plus sertraline vs olanzapine plus placebo for psychotic depression: the study of pharmacotherapy of psychotic depression (STOP-PD)

CONTEXT

Evidence for the efficacy of combination pharmacotherapy has been limited and without positive trials in geriatric patients with major depression (MD) with psychotic features.

OBJECTIVES

To compare remission rates of MD with psychotic features in those treated with a combination of atypical antipsychotic medication plus a serotonin reuptake inhibitor with those treated with antipsychotic monotherapy; and to compare response by age.

DESIGN

Twelve-week, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial.

SETTING

Clinical services of 4 academic sites. Patients Two hundred fifty-nine subjects with MD with psychotic features randomized by age (<60 or > or =60 years) (mean [standard deviation (SD)], 41.3 [10.8] years in 117 younger adults vs 71.7 [7.8] years in 142 geriatric participants). Intervention Target doses of 15 to 20 mg of olanzapine per day plus masked sertraline or placebo at 150 to 200 mg per day. Main Outcome Measure Remission rates of MD with psychotic features.

RESULTS

Treatment with olanzapine/sertraline was associated with higher remission rates during the trial than olanzapine/placebo (odds ratio [OR], 1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-1.47; P < .001); 41.9% of subjects who underwent combination therapy were in remission at their last assessment compared with 23.9% of subjects treated with monotherapy (chi(2)(1) = 9.53, P = .002). Combination therapy was comparably superior in both younger (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.05-1.50; P = .02) and older (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.09-1.66; P = .01) adults. Overall, tolerability was comparable across age groups. Both age groups had significant increases in cholesterol and triglyceride concentrations, but statistically significant increases in glucose occurred only in younger adults. Younger adults gained significantly more weight than older subjects (mean [SD], 6.5 [6.6] kg vs 3.3 [4.9] kg, P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Combination pharmacotherapy is efficacious for the treatment of MD with psychotic features. Future research must determine the benefits vs risks of continuing atypical antipsychotic medications beyond 12 weeks.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00056472.

The response of psychotic-like symptoms to fluoxetine monotherapy in non-psychotic major depressive disorder

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence of psychotic-like symptoms in non-psychotic major depressive disorder and to monitor the response of these symptoms to monotherapy with fluoxetine.

METHODS

We reviewed the charts of 384 subjects (54.7% women; mean age 39.9±10), all outpatients diagnosed with non-psychotic major depressive disorder by the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID), aged 18-65 years, with an initial 17-item Hamilton Depression (HAM-D-17) score of 16 or greater. Subjects were treated openly with fluoxetine 20 mg/day for 8 weeks. Subjects were administered the SCID-II (Structured Clinical Diagnostic Interview for Personality Disorder) prior to entering acute treatment and at the completion of the acute phase of treatment. We monitored the course of psychotic-like symptoms following this course of therapy.

RESULTS

187 subjects endorsed at least one psychotic-like symptom, including not trusting close acquaintances (item 51), picking up hidden meanings (item 52), believing that others were talking about them (item 57), magical thinking (item 60) or unusual perceptual experiences (item 62). None of these patients met criteria for delusional depression as defined by the SCID. Overall response rates were 36.4% for patients who endorsed psychotic-like symptoms, and 53.3% for those who did not endorse psychotic-like symptoms (chi-squared = 11.1, P=0.001). The decrease in psychotic-like symptoms during the course of fluoxetine monotherapy was significant (P<0.05) in both responders and non-responders to treatment.

CONCLUSION

A significant percentage of patients with non-psychotic major depression endorse subtle psychotic-like symptoms, many of which abate during monotherapy with fluoxetine regardless of response of the depressive symptoms.

Effects of different antidepressant treatments on the core of depression

Core symptoms of depression are a combination of psychological and somatic symptoms, often combined with psychomotor and cognitive disturbances. Diagnostic classification of depression including the concepts of melancholic, endogenous, or severe depression describe severely depressed patients suffering from most of the core symptoms, together with clinical characteristics of a cyclic unipolar or bipolar course, lower placebo response rates, higher response rates to electroconvulsive therapy, to antidepressant treatments with dually or mixed modes of action, or to lithium augmentation. Higher rates ofhypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis hyperactivity and specific electroencephalograph patterns have also been shown in this patient group. Summarizing the symptomatology of depression in these patients, a broad overlap between the abovementioned subgroups can be suggested. Because the positive diagnosis of those core symptoms of depression may include clinical consequences, it would be of use to integrate all the mentioned concepts in the upcoming new versions of the diagnostic systems DSM-V and ICD-11.

The Psychopharmacology Algorithm Project at the Harvard South Shore Program: an update on psychotic depression

This new version of the psychotic depression algorithm has been developed by the Psychopharmacology Algorithm Project at the Harvard South Shore Program. The most effective treatment modality for inpatients with severe psychotic depression is electroconvulsive therapy. The first-line psychopharmacological treatment is a combination of an antidepressant (either a tricyclic or a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) and an antipsychotic. If one of these combinations has failed, consider switching to the other. If both combinations have failed, the next psychopharmacological option would be to augment the combination with lithium. Another option, though with limited evidence, is monotherapy with clozapine. If there is a good reason to avoid combination therapy with an antipsychotic, then a trial of monotherapy with a TCA or an SSRI can be supported. If that fails, adding an antipsychotic or ECT should be considered.

Combination therapy with amisulpride and antidepressants: clinical observations in case series of elderly patients with psychotic depression

Psychotic depression is classified as a clinical subtype of major depressive disorder. The combination of an antidepressant with an antipsychotic agent has been demonstrated to be efficacious for the treatment of psychotic depression. However, in elderly patients with psychotic depression, little information is available on the efficacy of such combinations. Therefore, we have evaluated combination treatment for 5 weeks with amisulpride and antidepressants in non-demented elderly patients with psychotic depression. Eleven patients were treated with either citalopram 20-40 mg/day (n=5) or mirtazapine 30-60 mg/day (n=6), and amisulpride 75-100 mg/day for 5 weeks. Clinical status was evaluated at baseline and after 3 and 5 weeks using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale--17 items (HDRS) and the Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI-S). In 5 of the 11 patients there was remission of depression, while in another 5 patients there was partial remission of depression and in one patient there was no remission. Finally, there was resolution of psychotic symptoms in all the patients involved. One patient developed tremor and rigidity but insisted on continuing with the drug since her psychopathology has improved considerably after the addition of amisulpride to antidepressant treatment. In conclusion, some of the elderly patients with psychotic depression may benefit from the combination of amisulpride and antidepressant pharmacotherapy.

Efficacy of imipramine in psychotic versus nonpsychotic depression

The purpose of the present study is to compare the efficacy of imipramine in the treatment of psychotic versus nonpsychotic depression. Previous studies report varying results of monotherapy with antidepressants in psychotic depression. Because psychotic depression is seriously underinvestigated, performing a post hoc analysis of randomized clinical trials consisting of both psychotic and nonpsychotic depressed patients may contribute to the discussion on the optimal treatment of depressed patients with mood-congruent psychotic features. A total of 112 patients diagnosed with major depression (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition) (40 with psychotic depression and 82 without psychotic features) received treatment with imipramine for 6 weeks after a washout period of 7 days. Imipramine doses were adjusted to attain a predefined fixed plasma level. Treatment response was assessed with the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D). A logistic regression analysis showed a significantly larger reduction in HAM-D score in the sample with psychotic features compared with the nonpsychotic sample (regression coefficient, -3.47; SE, 1.7; P = 0.04). According to the primary outcome criterion, that is, the change in HAM-D score, imipramine was significantly more effective in the sample with psychotic depression compared with the nonpsychotic depressed patients. The contradiction between our results and those of several previous studies may be due to the fixed plasma level dosing of imipramine refraining from concurrent psychotropic medication or limiting our patient sample to patients with mood-congruent psychotic features.

Olanzapine in the treatment of depression with psychotic features: A prospective open-label study

Objective. Depression with psychotic features is a severe subtype of major depression associated with the presence of delusions, hallucinations and specific neurobiological features. Despite clinical consensus and guideline recommendations, data comparing the efficacy of combining antipsychotics with antidepressants compared to antidepressants alone remain inconclusive. The aim of the study was to investigate effectiveness and tolerability of the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine in acute depression with psychotic features. Methods. Seventeen inpatients with major depressive disorder with psychosis (MDDp) were treated with a combination of an antidepressant and olanzapine for 6 weeks in a prospective open-label study. Depressive and psychotic symptoms, extrapyramidal and general side effects were assessed every 2 weeks. Sixteen patients were eligible for final analysis. Results. The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) showed a 30% symptom reduction after week 2, a 45% symptom reduction after week 4 and no considerable improvement thereafter. Depressive symptoms (Bech-Rafaelsen Melancholia Scale, BRMS) receded by 37% after week 2 and 50% after week 4. No extrapyramidal side effects occurred. Conclusion. Olanzapine is effective and tolerable in combination with an antidepressant in an MDDp inpatient sample. The results concur with data supporting good efficacy in negative and depressive symptoms of patients with schizophrenic and schizoaffective diseases.

Antidepressant use in treatment of psychosis with comorbid depression in Parkinson's disease

The authors report an improvement in delusions and hallucinations after antidepressant treatment (Clomipramine) in a parkinsonian patient with psychosis and comorbid depression. Their findings, which support a previous case treated with Citalopram, highlight the possible effectiveness of antidepressant therapy on psychotic symptoms in parkinsonian patients.

Pharmacological treatment for unipolar psychotic depression: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal pharmacological treatment of unipolar psychotic depression is uncertain.

AIMS

To compare the clinical effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for patients with unipolar psychotic depression.

METHOD

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

RESULTS

Ten trials were included in the review. We found no evidence that the combination of an antidepressant with an antipsychotic is more effective than an antidepressant alone. This combination was statistically more effective than an antipsychotic alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Antidepressant monotherapy and adding an antipsychotic if the patient does not respond, or starting with the combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic, both appear to be appropriate options for patients with unipolar psychotic depression. However, clinically the balance between risks and benefits may suggest the first option should be preferred for many patients. Starting with an antipsychotic alone appears to be inadequate.

Psychotic Major Depression

Numerous studies in the past three decades have characterised 'psychotic major depression', a subtype of major depression which is accompanied by delusions or other psychotic features. Evidence from phenomenological and neurobiological investigations indicates that this is a unique disorder with clinical and biological characteristics that are distinct from those of nonpsychotic depression and from other psychotic disorders. Treatment studies have provided evidence of small placebo effects and good responses to electroconvulsive therapy or combination treatment with an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic agent. However, until recently, there were only a few small, prospective, double-blind, controlled trials investigating the efficacy of antidepressant-antipsychotic combination pharmacotherapy, yet this constitutes the currently accepted and most universally applied 'standard of care' for psychotic depression. Treatment guidelines have been based largely on uncontrolled investigations of electroconvulsive therapy and studies using tricyclic antidepressants and first-generation antipsychotic drugs, which are not frequently chosen as first-line agents today because of concerns regarding tolerability and risks. However, recent open-label studies and large controlled trials of newer antidepressants and antipsychotics have yielded very divergent results thus far, so that the best treatment approach remains elusive. This review discusses the phenomenology and treatment of psychotic depression with a focus on the benefits and risks of various treatment approaches. Problems with this literature are highlighted, and strategies for future research are suggested.

Pharmacological treatment for psychotic depression

BACKGROUND

Regarding the pharmacological treatment of psychotic depression there is uncertainty about the effectiveness of an antidepressant alone compared to the combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for patients with a psychotic depression: antidepressant monotherapy, antipsychotic monotherapy, and the combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic, compared with each other and/or with placebo.

SEARCH STRATEGY

(1) The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) was screened with the terms depressive disorder and drug treatment (April 2004). (2) MEDLINE (1966 to April 2004) and EMBASE (1980 to April 2004) were searched using terms with regard to treatment of unipolar psychotic depression.(3) Reference lists of related reviews and reference lists of all identified studies were searched.(4) Personal communications.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with patients with major depression with psychotic features as well as RCTs with patients with major depression with or without psychotic features which reported on the subgroup of patients with psychotic features separately.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers assessed the methodological quality of the included studies, according to the Cochrane Handbook criteria. Data were entered into RevMan 4.2.5. We used intention-to-treat data. For dichotomous efficacy outcomes, the relative risk with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was calculated. For continuously distributed outcomes, it was not possible to extract data from the RCTs. Regarding the primary harm outcome, only overall drop-out rates were available for all studies.

MAIN RESULTS

The search identified 3333 abstracts, but only 10 RCTs with a total of 548 patients could be included in the review. Due to clinical heterogeneity, few meta-analyses were possible. We found no conclusive evidence that the combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic is more effective than an antidepressant alone (two RCTs; RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.41), but a combination is more effective than an antipsychotic alone (three RCTs; RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.80). There were no statistically significant differences in the overall drop-out rates between any of the treatments, neither in individual studies nor after pooling of studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with an antipsychotic alone is not a good option. Starting with an antidepressant alone and adding an antipsychotic if the patient does not respond or starting with the combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic both appear appropriate options for patients with psychotic depression. In clinical practice the balance between risks and benefits suggests that initial antidepressive monotherapy and adding an antipsychotic if there is inadequate response should be the preferred treatment strategy for many patients. The general lack of available data limits confidence in the conclusions drawn.

Neuropathologic correlates of late-onset major depression

Late life major depression (LLMD) is frequently associated with cognitive impairment, and increases the risk for subsequent dementia. Cerebrovascular disease, Alzheimer's disease (AD), and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) have all been hypothesized to contribute to this increased risk, though prospective studies have yet to examine these hypotheses with autopsy confirmation of the clinical diagnoses. The aim of this study is to examine the rates of cerebrovascular, AD, and DLB pathology among the first 10 participants in an LLMD brain tissue donation program. Subjects' psychiatric diagnoses and cognitive status were prospectively determined during their participation in clinical research protocols of the Intervention Research Center for Late Life Mood Disorders. After death, final clinical diagnoses were made using all clinical information, while blind to neuropathologic diagnoses. Neuropathologic assessments were conducted blind to final clinical diagnoses. Rates of neuropathology were compared with those in a cohort of subjects with dementia, without a history of LLMD, participating in an Alzheimer Disease Research Center. Seven (70%) subjects had evidence of onset of a dementia prior to death. LLMD with dementia was significantly associated with a neuropathologic diagnosis of AD. Cerebrovascular disease and DLB pathology were also frequent in the LLMD subjects with dementia, and were found in an LLMD subject without dementia. Rates of AD, DLB, and cerebrovascular disease were similar to those in the comparison subjects. These preliminary findings suggest that AD is the predominant neuropathologic condition in LLMD subjects with dementia. Further assessment of the role of comorbid cerebrovascular disease and comorbid DLB is needed.

Antidepressants in the treatment of psychosis with comorbid depression in Parkinson disease

Psychotic symptoms are commonly associated with Parkinson disease and can be a source of significant morbidity. Depression has been reported as a comorbidity in patients with psychosis. We describe a patient with Parkinson disease with psychotic symptoms and comorbid depression whose treatment refractory delusions and hallucinations improved markedly only after antidepressant monotherapy was initiated. The phenomenology of the delusions was atypical for those found in Parkinson or in depression. Psychotic symptoms refractory or only partially responsive to conventional treatment should prompt a search for potential underlying psychiatric comorbidities. Given case reports of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms with antidepressants, we emphasize careful identification and active follow up of the comorbid depressive disorders in PD patients with psychosis. Potential mechanisms implicated in the response of psychosis to antidepressants are discussed.

Guideline for the management of late-life depression in primary care

OBJECTIVE

To develop a guideline for the primary care management of depression in later life based on best practice.

METHOD

Source material included relevant guidelines, literature reviews and consensus documents coupled with an updated literature review covering 1998-October, 2001. This material was summarised as a series of evidence-based statements and recommendations agreed by consensus.

RESULTS

Good quality evidence exists for the pharmacological and psychological treatment of depressive episode (major depression), although not specifically in primary care. There is some evidence of efficacy of antidepressants in late-life dysthymia and minor depression associated with poor functional status. In depressive episode, current evidence suggests acute treatment for at least six weeks and a continuation period of at least 12 months. Both tricyclic antidepressants and Selective Serotonin Re-uptake Inhibitors are effective in longterm prevention. There is less data on how to manage patients who do not respond in the acute treatment phase. More data is needed on sub-groups of patients with specific co-morbid medical conditions and those who are frail. Collaborative care is effective in older depressed primary care patients.

CONCLUSIONS

There are effective treatments for depression in primary care. More research is needed to address the optimum treatment of depression with medical co-morbidity and to elucidate the role of newer psychological interventions. Collaborative care between primary care and specialist services is a promising new avenue for management.

Challenges in the treatment of depression with psychotic features

Major depression with psychotic features (MDpsy), a disorder with considerable morbidity and mortality, is more common than is generally realized and is a most difficult form of depression to treat. Patients with MDpsy exhibit more frequent relapses and recurrences and have increased use of services, greater disability, and a poorer clinical course when compared with nonpsychotically depressed patients. Patients with MDpsy demonstrate distinct biological abnormalities in studies of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, dopaminergic activity, enzyme studies, brain imaging, electroencephalogram sleep profiles, and measures of serotonergic function when compared with nonpsychotic depression. The social and occupational impairment in MDpsy has been hypothesized to be secondary to subtle cognitive deficits caused by the higher cortisol levels frequently observed in MDpsy patients. Several studies support a relationship between bipolar disorder and MDpsy, particularly in young-onset MDpsy. The most efficacious treatments for MDpsy include the combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic, amoxapine, or electroconvulsive therapy. Atypical antipsychotic medications may have particular relevance for the treatment of MDpsy because of the potential for reduced risk of extrapyramidal side effects and tardive dyskinesia, as well as antipsychotic and possibly antidepressant qualities. Based on the observations that MDpsy patients exhibit marked dysregulation of the HPA axis and elevated cortisol levels, several antiglucocorticoid strategies have been employed to treat MDpsy patients. Many questions regarding the acute and long-term treatment of MDpsy remain for future studies to address.