Search

Current pharmacological agents for depression have limited efficacy in achieving remission. Developing and validating new medications is challenging due to limited biological targets. This study aimed to link electrophysiological data and symptom improvement to better understand mechanisms underlying treatment response. Longitudinal changes in neural oscillations were assessed using resting-state electroencephalography (EEG) data from two Canadian Biomarker Integration Network in Depression studies, involving pharmacological and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) trials. Patients in the pharmacological trial received eight weeks of escitalopram, with treatment response defined as ≥ 50% decrease in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Early (baseline to week 2) and late (baseline to week 8) changes in neural oscillation were investigated using relative power spectral measures. An association was found between an initial increase in theta and symptom improvement after 2 weeks. Additionally, late increases in delta and theta, along with a decrease in alpha, were linked to a reduction in MADRS after 8 weeks. These late changes were specifically observed in responders. To assess specificity, we extended our analysis to the independent CBT cohort. Responders exhibited an increase in delta and a decrease in alpha after 2 weeks. Furthermore, a late (baseline to week 16) decrease in alpha was associated with symptom improvement following CBT. Results suggest a common late decrease in alpha across both treatments, while modulatory effects in theta may be specific to escitalopram treatment. This study offers insights into electrophysiological markers indicating a favorable response to antidepressants, enhancing our comprehension of treatment response mechanisms in depression., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

This study investigated how resting-state functional connectivity (rsFC) of the subgenual anterior cingulate cortex (sgACC) predicts antidepressant response in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). Eighty-seven medication-free MDD patients underwent baseline resting-state functional MRI scans. After 12 weeks of escitalopram treatment, patients were classified into remission depression (RD, n = 42) and nonremission depression (NRD, n = 45) groups. We conducted two analyses: a voxel-wise rsFC analysis using sgACC as a seed to identify group differences, and a prediction model based on the sgACC rsFC map to predict treatment efficacy. Haufe transformation was used to interpret the predictive rsFC features. The RD group showed significantly higher rsFC between the sgACC and regions in the fronto-parietal network (FPN), including the bilateral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and bilateral inferior parietal lobule (IPL), compared to the NRD group. These sgACC rsFC measures correlated positively with symptom improvement. Baseline sgACC rsFC also significantly predicted treatment response after 12 weeks, with a mean accuracy of 72.64% (p < 0.001), mean area under the curve of 0.74 (p < 0.001), mean specificity of 0.82, and mean sensitivity of 0.70 in 10-fold cross-validation. The predictive voxels were mainly within the FPN. The rsFC between the sgACC and FPN is a valuable predictor of antidepressant response in MDD patients. These findings enhance our understanding of the neurobiological mechanisms underlying treatment response and could help inform personalized treatment strategies for MDD., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: The comparative effectiveness of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) has been subjected to relatively little research. However, a recent study based on target trial emulation suggested that sertraline may be more effective than escitalopram., Aims: To investigate whether sertraline, citalopram, and escitalopram differ in their effectiveness-assessed via the risk of psychiatric hospital admission and suicide following treatment initiation. The choice to focus on sertraline, citalopram, and escitalopram was made to limit confounding by indication, as the Danish depression treatment guideline from 2007 specifically listed these three SSRIs as first choice., Method: We conducted a target trial emulation based on data from Danish registers. We identified all individuals that initiated treatment for depression with sertraline, citalopram, or escitalopram in the period from January 1, 2007, to March 1, 2019. These individuals were followed until psychiatric hospital admission or suicide (separate analyses), death, 1 year after treatment initiation or end of data. Cox proportional hazards regression adjusted for relevant baseline covariates was performed to emulate randomized treatment allocation, comparing the rate of psychiatric hospital admission and suicide for individuals treated with sertraline (used as reference), citalopram or escitalopram, respectively. For escitalopram, we conducted a sensitivity analysis excluding data from the period during which the drug was sold under patent, as the price of the drug during that time likely entailed a different prescription pattern, increasing the risk of ("patent-related") confounding by indication., Results: We identified 56,865, 118,145, and 31,083 individuals initiating treatment with sertraline, citalopram, and escitalopram, respectively. Using sertraline as reference, the adjusted hazard rate ratio (aHRR) for psychiatric admission was 0.98 (95% CI = 0.91-1.05) for citalopram and 1.21 (95% CI = 1.10-1.32) for escitalopram. Notably, in the sensitivity analysis only including patients initiating treatment after the escitalopram patent had expired, the increased risk of psychiatric hospital admission associated with escitalopram treatment was no longer present (aHRR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.82-1.18). The results of the analyses of suicide were inconclusive, due to few outcome events., Conclusions: Sertraline, citalopram, and escitalopram do not seem to have differential effectiveness in the treatment of depression. Taking potential patent-related, time varying, confounding by indication (via severity) into account is critical for pharmacoepidemiological studies, including those employing target trial emulation., (© 2024 The Author(s). Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) represent a diverse class of medications widely prescribed for depression and anxiety. Despite their common use, there is an absence of large-scale, real-world evidence capturing the heterogeneity in their effects on individuals. This study addresses this gap by utilizing naturalistic search data to explore the varied impact of six different SSRIs on user behavior., Methods: The study sample included ∼508 thousand Bing users with searches for one of six SSRIs (citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, sertraline) from April-December 2022, comprising 510 million queries. Cox proportional hazard models were employed to examine 30 topics (e.g., shopping, tourism, health) and 195 health symptoms (e.g., anxiety, weight gain, impotence), using each SSRI as a reference. We assessed the relative hazard ratios between drugs and, where feasible, ranked the SSRIs based on their observed effects. We used Cox proportional hazard models in order to account for both the likelihood of users searching for a particular topic or symptom and the associated time to that search. The temporal aspect aided in distinguishing between potential symptoms of the disorder, short-term medication side effects, and later appearing side effects., Results: Differences were found in search behaviors associated with each SSRI. E.g., fluvoxamine was associated with a significantly higher likelihood of searching weight gain compared to all other SSRIs (HRs 1.85-2.93). Searches following citalopram were associated with significantly higher rates of later impotence queries compared to all other SSRIs (HRs 5.11-7.76), except fluvoxamine. Fluvoxamine was associated with a significantly higher rate of health related searches than all other SSRIs (HRs 2.11-2.36)., Conclusions: Our study reveals new insights into the varying SSRI impacts, suggesting distinct symptom profiles. This novel use of large-scale, naturalistic search data contributes to pharmacovigilance efforts, enhancing our understanding of intra-class variation among SSRIs, potentially uncovering previously unidentified drug effects., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing Interest NCJ has a received grant from Boehringer-Ingelheim. NCJ has edited a book through Academic Press and receives book royalties, and NCJ also receives speaking fees related to his research. MVH has worked as a paid consultant for Artisight and ChatNexus. EYT was previously employed by Microsoft Research., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Citalopram and escitalopram are structurally close-related antidepressants and both forms are widely used in the world. We aimed to comparatively evaluate the anti-neuroinflammatory and neuroprotective effects of escitalopram and citalopram in Parkinson's disease (PD) mouse model. Mice were randomly divided into six groups and received 6-hydroxydopamine (6-OHDA) or vehicle administration. The mice were then treated with escitalopram, citalopram or saline for consecutive 7 days. Behaviors, neuroinflammation, neurotransmitters, and neurotoxicity were assessed. Results showed that citalopram but not escitalopram worsened body weight loss and increased freezing time in the PD mice. Both drugs had no impact on the anxiety-like behaviors but ameliorated the depressive-like behaviors as in elevated plus maze and sucrose splash tests. Escitalopram but not citalopram ameliorated motor discoordination in the PD mice as in rotarod test. In accordance, escitalopram but not citalopram attenuated the 6-OHDA-induced nigrostriatal dopaminergic loss. Further mechanistic investigations showed that both drugs mitigated activations of microglia and astrocytes and/or levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines in the PD mice, but escitalopram showed appreciably better effects in the substantia nigra. Neurotransmitter examination in the prefrontal cortex suggested that the two drugs had comparable effects on the disturbed neurotransmitters in the PD mice, but citalopram was prone to disrupt certain normal homeostasis. In conclusion, escitalopram is moderately superior than citalopram to suppress neuroinflammation and to protect against dopaminergic neuronal death and motor discoordination in the 6-OHDA-induced PD mice. Our findings imply that escitalopram shall be prescribed with priority over citalopram to treat PD patients with depression as escitalopram may meanwhile provide greater additional benefits to the patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: A more in-depth understanding of the relationship between depressive symptoms, neurocognition and suicidal behavior could provide insights into the prognosis and treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) and suicide. We conducted a network analysis among depressed patients examining associations between history of suicide attempt (HSA), core emotional major depression disorder, and key neurocognitive domains., Method: Depressed patients (n = 120) aged 18-65 years were recruited from a larger randomized clinical trial conducted at the Douglas Institute in Montreal, Canada. They were randomly assigned to receive one of two antidepressant treatments (i.e., escitalopram or desvenlafaxine) for 8 weeks. Core emotional MDD and key neurocognitive domains were assessed pre-post treatment., Results: At baseline, an association between history of suicide attempt (HSA) and phonemic verbal fluency (PVF) suggested that HSA patients reported lower levels of the latter. After 8 weeks of antidepressant treatment, HSA became conditionally independent from PVF. Similar results were found for both the HAM-D and the QIDS-SR core emotional MDD/neurocognitive networks., Conclusion: Network analysis revealed a pre-treatment relationship between a HSA and decreased phonemic VF among depressed patients, which was no longer present after 8 weeks of antidepressant treatment., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest All authors have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: There is growing evidence that adding non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to some psychopharmacological treatments may help to improve symptoms in patients suffering from major depressive disorder. The present study examined the therapeutic efficacy of adding celecoxib to escitalopram and the safety of doing so., Method: In this double-blind randomized controlled trial, 60 patients with major depressive disorder were randomly assigned to either treatment with escitalopram plus celecoxib (intervention group) or escitalopram and placebo. All patients were evaluated blind to treatment group with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) before the intervention as well at 4 and 8 weeks after initiating treatment. Chi-square and paired t-test were used to examine between-group differences at those assessment times., Results: There was no significant difference in depressive symptoms between intervention and placebo groups at baseline. However, at 4 and 8 weeks after the beginning of treatment, there were significant between-group differences in HDRS scores, favoring the intervention group. No between-group differences were found in treatment-related side effects., Conclusions: Adding celecoxib to escitalopram may improve symptoms of depression in patients with major depressive disorder without increasing the risk of drug-related side effects., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) dysfunction is one of the most important mechanisms underlying depression. It seems that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) improve depression via affecting BDNF level. In this systematic review, for the first time, we aimed to review the effect of three SSRIs including fluoxetine, escitalopram, and sertraline, on both depression and BDNF level in preclinical and clinical studies. PubMed electronic database was searched, and 193 articles were included in this study. After reviewing all manuscripts, only one important difference was found: subjects. We found that SSRIs induce different effects in animals vs. humans. Preclinical studies showed many controversial effects, while human studies showed only two effects: improvement of depression, with or without the improvement of BDNF. However, most studies used chronic SSRIs treatment, while acute SSRIs were not effectively used and evaluated. In conclusion, it seems that SSRIs are reliable antidepressants, and the improvement effect of SSRIs on depression is not dependent to BDNF level (at least in human studies)., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are widely used for depression based on the monoamine deficiency hypothesis. However, the clinical use of these agents is controversial, in part because of their variable clinical efficacy and in part because of their delayed onset of action. Because of the complexities involved in replicating human disease and clinical dosing in animal models, the scientific community has not reached a consensus on the reasons for these phenomena. In this work, we create a theoretical hippocampal model incorporating escitalopram's pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics (competitive and non-competitive inhibition, and serotonin transporter (SERT) internalization), inflammation, and receptor dynamics. With this model, we simulate chronic oral escitalopram in mice showing that days to weeks are needed for serotonin levels to reach steady-state. We show escitalopram's chemical efficacy is diminished under inflammation. Our model thus offers mechanisms for how chronic escitalopram affects brain serotonin, emphasizing the importance of optimized dose and time for future antidepressant discoveries., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Clinical studies of major depression (MD) generally focus on group effects, yet interindividual differences in brain function are increasingly recognized as important and may even impact effect sizes related to group effects. Here, we examine the magnitude of individual differences in relation to group differences that are commonly investigated (e.g., related to MD diagnosis and treatment response). Functional MRI data from 107 participants (63 female, 44 male) were collected at baseline, 2, and 8 weeks during which patients received pharmacotherapy (escitalopram, N  = 68) and controls ( N  = 39) received no intervention. The unique contributions of different sources of variation were examined by calculating how much variance in functional connectivity was shared across all participants and sessions, within/across groups (patients vs controls, responders vs nonresponders, female vs male participants), recording sessions, and individuals. Individual differences and common connectivity across groups, sessions, and participants contributed most to the explained variance (>95% across analyses). Group differences related to MD diagnosis, treatment response, and biological sex made significant but small contributions (0.3-1.2%). High individual variation was present in cognitive control and attention areas, while low individual variation characterized primary sensorimotor regions. Group differences were much smaller than individual differences in the context of MD and its treatment. These results could be linked to the variable findings and difficulty translating research on MD to clinical practice. Future research should examine brain features with low and high individual variation in relation to psychiatric symptoms and treatment trajectories to explore the clinical relevance of the individual differences identified here., Competing Interests: B.N.F. has received grant/research support from Alternative Funding Plan Innovations Award, Brain and Behavior Research Foundation, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Hamilton Health Sciences Foundation, J. P. Bickell Foundation, Ontario Brain Institute, Ontario Mental Health Foundation, Society for Women's Health Research, Teresa Cascioli Charitable Foundation, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer and has received consultant and/or speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Canadian Psychiatric Association, CANMAT, Daiichi Sankyo, Lundbeck, Pfizer, Servier, and Sunovion. R.M. has received consulting and speaking honoraria from AbbVie, Allergan, Janssen, KYE, Lundbeck, Otsuka, and Sunovion and research grants from CAN-BIND, CIHR, Janssen, Lallemand, Lundbeck, Nubiyota, OBI, and OMHF. S.P. has been a consultant to Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, Lundbeck; has had a research contract with Assurex; and has equity in Mensante. R.W.L. has received speaker and consultant honoraria or research funds from AstraZeneca, Brain Canada, Bristol-Myers Squibb, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments, the Canadian Psychiatric Association, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Lundbeck, Lundbeck Institute, Medscape, Otsuka, Pfizer, Servier, St. Jude Medical, Takeda, the University Health Network Foundation, Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, Allergan, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, BC Leading Edge Foundation, Healthy Minds Canada, Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research, MITACS, Myriad Neuroscience, Ontario Brain Institute, Otsuka, Unity Health, Viatris, and VGH-UBCH Foundation. S.H.K. has received honoraria or research funds from Abbott, Alkermes, Allergan, Boehringer Ingelheim, Brain Canada, CIHR, Janssen, Lundbeck, Lundbeck Institute, Ontario Brain Institute, Ontario Research Fund, Otsuka, Pfizer, Servier, Sunovion, and Sun Pharmaceutical and holds stock in Field Trip Health. D.J.M. has received consulting and speaking honoraria from Lundbeck and Genomind. C.S. has received consulting and speaking honoraria from Pfizer, Otsuka, Bayer, Eisai, and research grants from CAN-BIND, CIHR, OBI, and SEAMO. S.C.S. is a senior Scientific Advisor and shareholder in ADMdx, which receives NIH funding, and during the period of this research, he had research grants from Brain Canada, Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI), Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), and the Ontario Brain Institute in Canada. Other authors declare no competing financial interests., (Copyright © 2024 van der Wijk et al.)

Background: To investigate the association between pre-trial expectancy, suggestibility, and response to treatment in a trial of escitalopram and investigational drug, COMP360, psilocybin, in the treatment of major depressive disorder (ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT03429075)., Methods: We used data ( n = 55) from our recent double-blind, parallel-group, randomized head-to-head comparison trial of escitalopram and investigational drug, COMP360, psilocybin. Mixed linear models were used to investigate the association between pre-treatment efficacy-related expectations, as well as baseline trait suggestibility and absorption, and therapeutic response to both escitalopram and COMP360 psilocybin., Results: Patients had significantly higher expectancy for psilocybin relative to escitalopram; however, expectancy for escitalopram was associated with improved therapeutic outcomes to escitalopram, expectancy for psilocybin was not predictive of response to psilocybin. Separately, we found that pre-treatment trait suggestibility was associated with therapeutic response in the psilocybin arm, but not in the escitalopram arm., Conclusions: Overall, our results suggest that psychedelic therapy may be less vulnerable to expectancy biases than previously suspected. The relationship between baseline trait suggestibility and response to psilocybin therapy implies that highly suggestible individuals may be primed for response to this treatment.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) persists to be one of the most devastating and deadliest malignancies globally. Recent research into the molecular signaling networks entailed in many malignancies has given some prominent insights that can be leveraged to create molecular therapeutics for combating HCC. Therefore, in the current communication, an in-silico drug repurposing approach has been employed to target the function of PTP4A3/PRL-3 protein in HCC using antidepressants: Fluoxetine hydrochloride, Citalopram, Amitriptyline, Imipramine, and Escitalopram oxalate as the desired ligands. The density function theory (DFT) and chemical absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity (ADMET) parameters for the chosen ligands were evaluated to comprehend the pharmacokinetics, drug-likeness properties, and bioreactivity of the ligands. The precise interaction mechanism was explored using computational methods such as molecular docking and molecular dynamics (MD) simulation studies to assess the inhibitory effect and the stability of the interactions against the protein of interest. Escitalopram oxalate exhibited a comparatively significant docking score (-7.4 kcal/mol) compared to the control JMS-053 (-6.8 kcal/mol) against the PRL-3 protein. The 2D interaction plots exhibited an array of hydrophobic and hydrogen bond interactions. The findings of the ADMET forecast confirmed that it adheres to Lipinski's rule of five with no violations, and DFT analysis revealed a HOMO-LUMO energy gap of -0.26778 ev, demonstrating better reactivity than the control molecule. The docked complexes were subjected to MD studies (100 ns) showing stable interactions. Considering all the findings, it can be concluded that Escitalopram oxalate and related therapeutics can act as potential pharmacological candidates for targeting the activity of PTP4A3/PRL-3 in HCC., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Thirunavukkarasu C reports administrative support was provided by Pondicherry University. Thirunavukkarasu C reports a relationship with Pondicherry University that includes: employment. Thirunavukkarasu c has patent NIl pending to NIL. NIL, (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is commonly treated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). SSRIs inhibit the serotonin transporter (5-HTT), but the downstream antidepressant mechanism of action of these drugs is poorly understood. The serotonin 1B (5-HT1B) receptor is functionally linked to 5-HTT and 5-HT1B receptor binding and 5-HT1B receptor mRNA is reduced in the raphe nuclei after SSRI administration in primates and rodents, respectively. The effect of SSRI treatment on 5-HT1B receptor binding in patients with MDD has not been examined previously. This positron emission tomography (PET) study aimed to quantify brain 5-HT1B receptor binding changes in vivo after SSRI treatment for MDD in relation to treatment effect., Methods: Eight unmedicated patients with moderate to severe MDD underwent PET with the 5-HT1B receptor radioligand [11C]AZ10419369 before and after 3 to 4 weeks of treatment with the SSRI escitalopram 10 mg daily. Depression severity was assessed at time of PET and after 6 to 7 weeks of treatment with the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale., Results: We observed a significant reduction in [11C]AZ10419369 binding in a dorsal brainstem (DBS) region containing the median and dorsal raphe nuclei after escitalopram treatment (P = .036). Change in DBS [11C]AZ10419369 binding correlated with Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale reduction after 3-4 (r = 0.78, P = .021) and 6-7 (r = 0.94, P < .001) weeks' treatment., Conclusions: Our findings align with the previously reported reduction of 5-HT1B receptor binding in the raphe nuclei after SSRI administration and support future studies testing change in DBS 5-HT1B receptor binding as an SSRI treatment response marker., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of CINP.)

Background: There is growing evidence for the therapeutic effects of the psychedelic drug psilocybin for major depression. However, due to the lack of safety data on combining psilocybin with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) and concerns that there may be a negative interaction on efficacy, participants enrolling in psychedelic trials are usually required to discontinue SNRI/SNRIs prior to enrolling., Aims: Using data from a recent clinical trial examining the comparative efficacy the psychedelic drug psilocybin (P) combined with approximately 20 h of psychological support to a 6-week (daily) course of the SSRI escitalopram plus matched psychological support for major depressive disorder, we explored the effects of discontinuing SSRI/SNRIs prior to study enrolment on study outcomes., Methods: Exploratory post hoc analyses using linear mixed effects model were performed to investigate the discontinuation effect on various validated depression symptom severity scales and well-being. The impact of SSRI/SNRIs discontinuation on the acute psychedelic experience was also explored., Results/outcomes: In the psilocybin group, there was a reduced treatment effect on all outcome measures for SSRI/SNRIs discontinuers compared with unmedicated patients at trial entry. However, no effects of discontinuation on measures of the acute psychedelic experience were found., Conclusion: Discontinuation of SSRI/SNRIs before psilocybin might diminish response to treatment; however, as we did not test SSRI/SNRI continuation in our trial, we cannot infer such causation. Moreover, the exploratory nature of the analyses makes them hypothesis generating, and not confirmatory. A controlled trial of SSRI/SNRI discontinuation versus continuation prior to psilocybin is urgently required., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: RCH is a scientific advisor to Usona Institute, Journey Collab’, Osmind, Maya Health, Beckley Psytech, Anuma, MindState, Entheos Labs. DE is a paid advisor for Aya Biosciences, Clerkenwell Health, Lophora Aps and Mindstate Design Lab. DJN has received consulting fees from Algernon and H. Lundbeck and Beckley Psytech, advisory board fees from COMPASS Pathways and lecture fees from Takeda and Otsuka and Janssen plus owns stock in Alcarelle, Awakn and Psyched Wellness. TB has received consulting fees from Adamo Biosciences. None of the other authors reported conflicts of interest.