Search

A cornerstone of for-profit schools’ business model is to encourage students to borrow as much as possible to finance their college attendance. After drawing people in with misleading advertisements, for-profit colleges quickly hand prospective students off to financial aid officers who rush students through the process of explaining the financial aid system—if they explain it at all. These employees drive students to take on massive federal and private debt loads, including loans that the school itself originates. They will sometimes fill out or even fraudulently sign forms on students’ behalf, all the while insisting that they are working in the students’ interest. Each of these tactics has one goal: boosting schools’ revenues by inflating students’ debt balances, regardless of how unmanageable those loans are likely to be for borrowers. This issue brief argues that each of these areas of conduct place for-profit colleges squarely within the authority of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and that the Bureau can therefore intervene to protect borrowers. The CFPB’s authorizing statute states that anyone providing a consumer financial product or service is a “covered person” and therefore falls under the Bureau’s purview, including with respect to the prohibition on unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices. As this issue brief outlines, each one of the common features of the for-profit college business model described above is alone sufficient to make a for-profit college a “covered person,” including the practices of lending to students through institutional loan programs, brokering student loans through third parties, and providing students financial advisory services in the financial aid process (regardless of the quality of the advice). With for-profit college enrollment surging due to COVID, the need to rein in the industry has never been more pressing. The CFPB has the tools to combat the rampant illegal practices that the for-profit college industry relies on.

Background: Sex-related effects on the evolution and phenotype of major depressive disorder (MDD) were reported previously. Methods: This European multicenter cross-sectional study compared sociodemographic, clinical, and treatment patterns between males and females in a real-world sample of 1410 in- and outpatients with current MDD. Results: Male MDD patients (33.1%) were rather inpatients, suffered from moderate to high suicidality levels, received noradrenergicand specific serotonergic antidepressants (ADs) as first-line AD treatment, generally higher mean AD daily doses, and showed a trend towards a more frequent administration of add-on treatments. Female MDD patients (66.9%) were rather outpatients, experienced lower suicidality levels, comorbid thyroid dysfunction, migraine, asthma, and a trend towards earlier disease onset. Conclusions: The identified divergencies may contribute to the concept of maleand female depressive syndromes and serve as predictors of disease severity and course, as they reflect phenomena that were repeatedly related to treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Especially the greater necessity of inpatient treatment and more complex psychopharmacotherapy in men may reflect increased therapeutic efforts undertaken to treat suicidality and to avoid TRD. Hence, considering sex may guide the diagnostic and treatment processes towards targeting challenging clinical manifestations including comorbidities and suicidality, and prevention of TRD and chronicity.

Background While the association between relationship status and the development of depressive symptoms in the general population were reported previously, its relation to the severity and the course of major depressive disorder (MDD) as well as the treatment patterns and response rates needs to be elucidated. Methods The present international multicenter cross-sectional study performed by the European Group for the Study of Resistant Depression (GSRD) investigated socio-demographic and clinical patterns of relationship status in a real-world sample of 1410 adult in- and outpatients with MDD as primary diagnosis. Results While 49.9% of all MDD patients were partnered, 25.4% were separated, and 24.8% were single. Single relationship status was linked to younger mean age, earlier mean age of onset, and current suicidal risk. Being separated was related to older mean age, unemployment, greater symptom severity, current suicidal risk, and add-on treatment strategies. Partnered relationship status was associated with less frequent current suicidal risk. Limitations The retrospective assessment of treatment response that was exclusively based on psychopharmacotherapeutic strategies should be critically considered and weighed while interpreting the present results providing novel insights into the complex interaction of relationship status with the clinical phenotype of MDD. Conclusions Although MDD patients living in relationships do not seem to be omitted from the evolution of MDD, they may be spared from chronicity and suicidality. Hence, being aware of the current relationship status might support clinicians in the diagnostic and therapeutic process towards optimized management of such challenging clinical phenomena and their negative consequences.

BACKGROUND: The present multicenter study aimed at defining the clinical profile of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and comorbid migraine. METHODS: Demographic and clinical information for 1410 MDD patients with vs without concurrent migraine were compared by descriptive statistics, analyses of covariance, and binary logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: The point prevalence rate for comorbid migraine was 13.5% for female and 6.2% for male patients. MDD + migraine patients were significantly younger, heavier, more likely female, of non-Caucasian origin, outpatient, and suffering from asthma. The presence of MDD + migraine resulted in a significantly higher functional disability. First-line antidepressant treatment strategy revealed a trend towards agomelatine. Second-generation antipsychotics were significantly less often administered for augmentation treatment in migraineurs. Overall, MDD + migraine patients tended to respond worse to their pharmacotherapy. CONCLUSION: Treatment guidelines for comorbid depression and migraine are warranted to ensure optimal efficacy and avoid possible pitfalls in psychopharmacotherapy, including serotonin syndrome., SCOPUS: ar.j, DecretOANoAutActif, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

The objective of the present multicenter study was to elucidate relevant associations between major depressive disorder (MDD) and comorbid hypertension that are known for their frequent co-occurrence and interaction with regard to functional disability. Demographic and clinical information of altogether 1410 patients were retrieved cross-sectionally. Consecutively, a comparison of patient characteristics between MDD subjects with and without comorbid hypertension were conducted by descriptive statistics, analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) and binary logistic regression analyses. The point prevalence rate for comorbid hypertension was 18.9%. Patients with MDD+comorbid hypertension were significantly older, heavier, more likely to be in a relationship, inpatient and diagnosed with further comorbid chronic somatic diseases including heart disease, diabetes and thyroid dysfunction. In addition, individuals with MDD and comorbid hypertension exhibited a higher score at the Montgomery and Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) at onset of the current depressive episode. Melancholic features of depression showed a higher probability. The first line antidepressant treatment did not differ significantly between MDD subjects with versus without comorbid hypertension. Augmentation with pregabalin and combination with one additional antidepressant, however, were more common in the MDD+hypertension group. In conclusion, high blood pressure may influence illness severity and is associated with a distinct psychopathology in MDD patients. Patients with MDD and comorbid hypertension, that seems to be underdiagnosed in MDD patients compared to the general population, are subject to additional somatic diseases in almost 100 percent of the cases and hence, need to be screened and treated accordingly.

Despite plenty of effective antidepressant (AD) treatments, the outcome of major depressive disorder (MDD) is often unsatisfactory, probably due to improvable exploitation of available therapies. This European, cross-sectional, naturalistic multicenter study investigated the frequency of additional psychotherapy in terms of a manual-driven psychotherapy (MDP) in 1410 adult in- and outpatients with MDD, who were primarily treated with AD psychopharmacotherapy. Socio-demographic and clinical patterns were compared between patients receiving both treatments and those lacking concomitant MDP. In a total of 1279 MDD patients (90.7%) with known status of additional MDP, those undergoing a psychopharmacotherapy-MDP combination (31.2%) were younger, higher educated, more often employed and less severely ill with lower odds for suicidality as compared to patients receiving exclusively psychopharmacotherapy (68.8%). They experienced an earlier mean age of MDD onset, melancholic features, comorbid asthma and migraine and received lower daily doses of their first-line ADs. While agomelatine was more often established in these patients, MDD patients without MDP received selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors more frequently. These two patient groups did not differ in terms of response, non-response and treatment resistant depression (TRD). Accordingly, the employment of additional MDP could not be related to better treatment outcomes in MDD. The fact that MDP was applied in a minority of patients with rather beneficial socio-demographic and clinical characteristics might reflect inferior accessibility of these psychotherapeutic techniques for socially and economically disadvantaged populations., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

There is still a debate, if melancholic symptoms can be seen rather as a more severe subtype of major depressive disorder (MDD) or as a separate diagnostic entity. The present European multicenter study comprising altogether 1410 MDD in- and outpatients sought to investigate the influence of the presence of melancholic features in MDD patients. Analyses of covariance, chi-squared tests, and binary logistic regression analyses were accomplished to determine differences in socio-demographic and clinical variables between MDD patients with and without melancholia. We found a prevalence rate of 60.71% for melancholic features in MDD. Compared to non-melancholic MDD patients, they were characterized by a significantly higher likelihood for higher weight, unemployment, psychotic features, suicide risk, inpatient treatment, severe depressive symptoms, receiving add-on medication strategies in general, and adjunctive treatment with antidepressants, antipsychotics, benzodiazepine (BZD)/BZD-like drugs, low-potency antipsychotics, and pregabalin in particular. With regard to the antidepressant pharmacotherapy, we found a less frequent prescription of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in melancholic MDD. No significant between-group differences were found for treatment response, non-response, and resistance. In summary, we explored primarily variables to be associated with melancholia which can be regarded as parameters for the presence of severe/difficult-to treat MDD conditions. Even if there is no evidence to realize any specific treatment strategy in melancholic MDD patients, their prescribed medication strategies were different from those for patients without melancholia.

Objectives: Clinical variables were investigated in the ‘treatment resistant depression (TRD)- III’ sample to replicate earlier findings by the European research consortium ‘Group for the Study of Resistant Depression’ (GSRD) and enable cross-sample prediction of treatment outcome in TRD. Experimental procedures: TRD was defined by a Montgomery and Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score ≥22 after at least two antidepressive trials. Response was defined by a decline in MADRS score by ≥50% and below a threshold of 22. Logistic regression was applied to replicate predictors for TRD among 16 clinical variables in 916 patients. Elastic net regression was applied for prediction of treatment outcome. Results: Symptom severity (odds ratio (OR) = 3.31), psychotic symptoms (OR = 2.52), suicidal risk (OR = 1.74), generalized anxiety disorder (OR = 1.68), inpatient status (OR = 1.65), higher number of antidepressants administered previously (OR = 1.23), and lifetime depressive episodes (OR = 1.15) as well as longer duration of the current episode (OR = 1.022) increased the risk of TRD. Prediction of TRD reached an accuracy of 0.86 in the independent validation set, TRD-I. Conclusion: Symptom severity, suicidal risk, higher number of lifetime depressive episodes, and comorbid anxiety disorder were replicated as the most prominent risk factors for TRD. Significant predictors in TRD-III enabled robust prediction of treatment outcome in TRD-I., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Since many patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) do not satisfactorily respond to initial antidepressant monotherapy, add-on treatment strategies with other psychiatric compounds are often established. The present European multicenter cross-sectional study comprising 1410 MDD in- and outpatients investigated the prescription pattern of benzodiazepines as add-on treatment in the psychopharmacotherapy of MDD. Analyses of variance, chi-squared tests, and logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine differences in socio-demographic, clinical, and treatment characteristics between benzodiazepine users and non-users. The prescription rate for adjunctive benzodiazepine treatment amounted to 31.35%. The most often administered benzodiazepines were lorazepam (11.13%), clonazepam (6.74%), and alprazolam (6.60%). Benzodiazepine users exhibited more severe depressive symptoms expressed by a higher mean Montgomery and Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score at study entry (26.92 ± 11.07 vs 23.55 ± 11.23, p

Objectives: The overview outlines two decades of research from the European Group for the Study of Resistant Depression (GSRD) that fundamentally impacted evidence-based algorithms for diagnostics and psychopharmacotherapy of treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Methods: The GSRD staging model characterising response, non-response and resistance to antidepressant (AD) treatment was applied to 2762 patients in eight European countries. Results: In case of non-response, dose escalation and switching between different AD classes did not show superiority over continuation of original AD treatment. Predictors for TRD were symptom severity, duration of the current major depressive episode (MDE), suicidality, psychotic and melancholic features, comorbid anxiety and personality disorders, add-on treatment, non-response to the first AD, adverse effects, high occupational level, recurrent disease course, previous hospitalisations, positive family history of MDD, early age of onset and novel associations of single nucleoid polymorphisms (SNPs) within the PPP3CC, ST8SIA2, CHL1, GAP43 and ITGB3 genes and gene pathways associated with neuroplasticity, intracellular signalling and chromatin silencing. A prediction model reaching accuracy of above 0.7 highlighted symptom severity, suicidality, comorbid anxiety and lifetime MDEs as the most informative predictors for TRD. Applying machine-learning algorithms, a signature of three SNPs of the BDNF, PPP3CC and HTR2A genes and lacking melancholia predicted treatment response. Conclusions: The GSRD findings offer a unique and balanced perspective on TRD representing foundation for further research elaborating on specific clinical and genetic hypotheses and treatment strategies within appropriate study-designs, especially interaction-based models and randomized controlled trials.

Objective: This multicenter, multinational, cross-sectional study aimed to investigate clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes associated with augmentation/combination treatment strategies in major depressive disorder (MDD). Method: Sociodemographic, clinical, and treatment features of 1410 adult MDD patients were compared between MDD patients treated with monotherapy and augmentation/combination medication using descriptive statistics, analyses of covariance (ancova), and Spearman's correlation analyses. Results: 60.64% of all participants received augmentation and/or combination strategies with a mean number of 2.18 ± 1.22 simultaneously prescribed psychiatric drugs. We found male gender, older age, Caucasian descent, higher weight, low educational status, absence of occupation, psychotic symptoms, melancholic and atypical features, suicide risk, in-patient treatment, longer duration of hospitalization, some psychiatric comorbidities (panic disorder, agoraphobia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and bulimia nervosa), comorbid somatic comorbidity in general and concurrent hypertension, thyroid dysfunction, diabetes, and heart disease in particular, higher current and retrospective Montgomery and Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total scores, treatment resistance, and higher antidepressant dosing to be significantly associated with augmentation/combination treatment. These findings were corroborated when examining the number of concurrently administered psychiatric drugs in the statistical analyses. Conclusion: Our findings suggest a clear association between augmentation/combination strategies and treatment-resistant/difficult-to-treat MDD conditions characterized by severe symptomatology and high amount of psychiatric and somatic comorbidities., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Major depressive disorder is one of the most prevalent and life-threatening forms of mental illnesses and a major cause of morbidity worldwide. Currently available antidepressants are effective for most patients, although around 30% are considered treatment resistant (TRD), a condition that is associated with a significant impairment of cognitive function and poor quality of life. In this respect, the identification of the molecular mechanisms contributing to TRD represents an essential step for the design of novel and more efficacious drugs able to modify the clinical course of this disorder and increase remission rates in clinical practice. New insights into the neurobiology of TRD have shed light on the role of a number of different mechanisms, including the glutamatergic system, immune/inflammatory systems, neurotrophin function, and epigenetics. Advances in drug discovery processes in TRD have also influenced the classification of antidepressant drugs and novel classifications are available, such as the neuroscience-based nomenclature that can incorporate such advances in drug development for TRD. This review aims to provide an up-to-date description of key mechanisms in TRD and describe current therapeutic strategies for TRD before examining novel approaches that may ultimately address important neurobiological mechanisms not targeted by currently available antidepressants. All in all, we suggest that drug targeting different neurobiological systems should be able to restore normal function but must also promote resilience to reduce the long-term vulnerability to recurrent depressive episodes.

Objective: To elucidate the impact of the presence of psychotic features in patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder (MDD) on sociodemographic, psychosocial, clinical, and response characteristics. Methods: A total of 1, 410 DSM-IV-TR MDD patients were included in the present European multicenter study, which was conducted between 2011 and 2016. Analyses of covariance, ?2 tests, and binary logistic regression analyses were performed to explore differences in sociodemographic and clinical variables between MDD patients with and without psychotic symptoms. Results: A prevalence rate of 10.92% for psychotic features was found in MDD. Compared to nonpsychotic MDD patients, those with psychotic features were characterized by a higher likelihood for melancholic characteristics (73.38% vs 59.16%, P = .0006), a higher rate of current suicide risk (60.39% vs 44.27%, P = .0002), greater likelihood of receiving inpatient treatment (55.84% vs 32.01%, P < .0001), greater depressive symptom severity (measured by various rating scales), and more often receiving augmentation/combination treatment strategies in general (81.17% vs 58.12%, P < .0001) and add-on therapy with antipsychotics (50.00% vs 22.69%, P < .0001) and benzodiazepines (47.40% vs 31.29%, P = .0001) in particular. Moreover, psychotic symptoms in MDD were highly predictive of treatment resistance, expressed by a more than 2.2-fold higher likelihood for resistance compared to nonpsychotic MDD patients (79.87% vs 35.75%, P < .0001). Only 3.25% of the patients with psychotic MDD achieved treatment response (vs 27.15% of those with nonpsychotic MDD, P < .0001). Conclusions: These findings suggest that adequate diagnosis of psychotic features in MDD should be ensured in routine clinical care. As a combination of antipsychotics and antidepressants represents the first-line treatment option in psychotic MDD, the finding of a 2-fold higher prescription rate for antipsychotic drugs in psychotic versus nonpsychotic MDD patients reflects the current evidence.