Values and Preferences of Patients With Depressive Disorders Regarding Pharmacologic and Nonpharmacologic Treatments : A Rapid Review

Neurobiology and systems biology of stress resilience

Stress resilience is the phenomenon that some people maintain their mental health despite exposure to adversity or show only temporary impairments followed by quick recovery. Resilience research attempts to unravel the factors and mechanisms that make resilience possible and to harness its insights for the development of preventative interventions in individuals at risk for acquiring stress-related dysfunctions. Biological resilience research has been lagging behind the psychological and social sciences but has seen a massive surge in recent years. At the same time, progress in this field has been hampered by methodological challenges related to finding suitable operationalizations and study designs, replicating findings, and modeling resilience in animals. We embed a review of behavioral, neuroimaging, neurobiological, and systems biological findings in adults in a critical methods discussion. We find preliminary evidence that hippocampus-based pattern separation and prefrontal-based cognitive control functions protect against the development of pathological fears in the aftermath of singular, event-type stressors [as found in fear-related disorders, including simpler forms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)] by facilitating the perception of safety. Reward system-based pursuit and savoring of positive reinforcers appear to protect against the development of more generalized dysfunctions of the anxious-depressive spectrum resulting from more severe or longer-lasting stressors (as in depression, generalized or comorbid anxiety, or severe PTSD). Links between preserved functioning of these neural systems under stress and neuroplasticity, immunoregulation, gut microbiome composition, and integrity of the gut barrier and the blood-brain barrier are beginning to emerge. On this basis, avenues for biological interventions are pointed out.

Comparative Effectiveness of Psychotherapy vs Antidepressants for Depression in Heart Failure: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Heart failure (HF) affects more than 6 million adults in the US and more than 64 million adults worldwide, with 50% prevalence of depression. Patients and clinicians lack information on which interventions are more effective for depression in HF.

Objective

To compare the effectiveness of behavioral activation psychotherapy (BA) vs antidepressant medication management (MEDS) on patient-centered outcomes inpatients with HF and depression.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This pragmatic randomized comparative effectiveness trial was conducted from 2018 to 2022, including 1-year follow-up, at a not-for-profit academic health system serving more than 2 million people from diverse demographic, socioeconomic, cultural, and geographic backgrounds. Participant included inpatients and outpatients diagnosed with HF and depression, and data were analyzed as intention-to-treat. Data were analyzed from 2022 to 2023.

Interventions

BA is an evidence-based manualized treatment for depression, promoting engagement in personalized pleasurable activities selected by patients. MEDS involves the use of an evidence-based collaborative care model with care managers providing coordination with patients, psychiatrists, and primary care physicians to only administer medications.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was depressive symptom severity at 6 months, measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire 9-Item (PHQ-9). Secondary outcomes included physical and mental health-related quality of life (HRQOL), measured using the Short-Form 12-Item version 2 (SF-12); heart failure-specific HRQOL, measured using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire; caregiver burden, measured with the Caregiver Burden Questionnaire for Heart Failure; emergency department visits; readmissions; days hospitalized; and mortality at 3, 6, and 12 months.

Results

A total of 416 patients (mean [SD] age, 60.71 [15.61] years; 243 [58.41%] male) were enrolled, with 208 patients randomized to BA and 208 patients randomized to MEDS. At baseline, mean (SD) PHQ-9 scores were 14.54 (3.45) in the BA group and 14.31 (3.60) in the MEDS group; both BA and MEDS recipients experienced nearly 50% reduction in depressive symptoms at 3, 6, and 12 months (eg, mean [SD] score at 12 months: BA, 7.62 (5.73); P < .001; MEDS, 7.98 (6.06); P < .001; between-group P = .55). There was no statistically significant difference between BA and MEDS in the primary outcome of PHQ-9 at 6 months (mean [SD] score, 7.53 [5.74] vs 8.09 [6.06]; P = .88). BA recipients, compared with MEDS recipients, experienced small improvement in physical HRQOL at 6 months (mean [SD] SF-12 physical score: 38.82 [11.09] vs 37.12 [10.99]; P = .04), had fewer ED visits (3 months: 38% [95% CI, 14%-55%] reduction; P = .005; 6 months: 30% [95% CI, 14%-40%] reduction; P = .008; 12 months: 27% [95% CI, 15%-38%] reduction; P = .001), and spent fewer days hospitalized (3 months: 17% [95% CI, 8%-25%] reduction; P = .002; 6 months: 19% [95% CI, 13%-25%] reduction; P = .005; 12 months: 36% [95% CI, 32%-40%] reduction; P = .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this comparative effectiveness trial of BA and MEDS in patients with HF experiencing depression, both treatments significantly reduced depressive symptoms by nearly 50% with no statistically significant differences between treatments. BA recipients experienced better physical HRQOL, fewer ED visits, and fewer days hospitalized. The study findings suggested that patients with HF could be given the choice between BA or MEDS to ameliorate depression.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03688100.

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

DESCRIPTION

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

METHODS

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

AUDIENCE AND PATIENT POPULATION

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

RECOMMENDATION 1A

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

RECOMMENDATION 1B

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

RECOMMENDATION 2

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

RECOMMENDATION 3

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