Search

Background Clinical trials of intravenous (IV) racemic (R,S)-ketamine (hereafter referred to as IV ketamine) have consistently reported rapid and substantial reductions in overall depressive symptoms compared with saline (inactive placebo) or midazolam (active placebo). The evidence for IV ketamine's specific effects on suicidal ideation is less clear, however. This study sought to examine whether differential placebo (saline or midazolam) response to overall depressive symptoms vs suicidal ideation may help explain these divergent findings. Methods Data for this participant-level integrative data analysis were drawn from 151 participants across 10 studies, and linear regression was used to examine the relationship between placebo response for suicidal ideation vs other depressive symptoms indexed from standard rating scales—specifically, depressed mood, anhedonia, anxiety, and guilt—over time. Results For participants receiving saline placebo (n = 46), greater placebo response was observed for suicidal ideation compared with other symptoms indexed from standard depression rating scales, except for anxiety. For those receiving midazolam placebo (n = 105), greater placebo response was observed for suicidal ideation compared with depressed mood or anhedonia, and no significant differences were observed when comparing suicidal ideation with anxiety or guilt. Conclusions Taken together, the results provide preliminary evidence of a differential placebo response for suicidal ideation vs other depressive symptoms, while anxiety and suicidal ideation appear to produce similar placebo response profiles. These findings may help explain the more modest findings in clinical IV ketamine trials for suicidal ideation than overall depression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Excessive Ca2+ currents via N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors (NMDARs) have been implicated in many disorders. Uncompetitive NMDAR channel blockers are an emerging class of drugs in clinical use for major depressive disorder (MDD) and other neuropsychiatric diseases. The pharmacological characterization of uncompetitive NMDAR blockers in clinical use may improve our understanding of NMDAR function in physiology and pathology. REL-1017 (esmethadone-HCl), a novel uncompetitive NMDAR channel blocker in Phase 3 trials for the treatment of MDD, was characterized together with dextromethorphan, memantine, (±)-ketamine, and MK-801 in cell lines over-expressing NMDAR subtypes using fluorometric imaging plate reader (FLIPR), automated patch-clamp, and manual patch-clamp electrophysiology. In the absence of Mg2+, NMDAR subtypes NR1-2D were most sensitive to low, sub-μM glutamate concentrations in FLIPR experiments. FLIPR Ca2+ determination demonstrated low μM affinity of REL-1017 at NMDARs with minimal subtype preference. In automated and manual patch-clamp electrophysiological experiments, REL-1017 exhibited preference for the NR1-2D NMDAR subtype in the presence of 1 mM Mg2+ and 1 μM L-glutamate. Tau off and trapping characteristics were similar for (±)-ketamine and REL-1017. Results of radioligand binding assays in rat cortical neurons correlated with the estimated affinities obtained in FLIPR assays and in automated and manual patch-clamp assays. In silico studies of NMDARs in closed and open conformation indicate that REL-1017 has a higher preference for docking and undocking the open-channel conformation compared to ketamine. In conclusion, the pharmacological characteristics of REL-1017 at NMDARs, including relatively low affinity at the NMDAR, NR1-2D subtype preference in the presence of 1 mM Mg2+, tau off and degree of trapping similar to (±)-ketamine, and preferential docking and undocking of the open NMDAR, could all be important variables for understanding the rapid-onset antidepressant effects of REL-1017 without psychotomimetic side effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In clinical trials, placebo response is considered a beneficial effect arising from multiple factors, including the patient's expectations for the treatment. Its presence makes the classical parallel study design suboptimal and can bias the inference. The sequential parallel comparison design (SPCD), a two‐stage design where the first stage is a classical parallel study design, followed by another parallel design among placebo subjects from the first stage, was proposed to address the shortcomings of the classical design. In SPCD, in lieu of treatment effect, a weighted average of the mean treatment difference in Stage I among all randomized subjects and the mean treatment difference in Stage II among placebo non‐responders was proposed as the efficacy measure. However, by linking two possibly different populations, this weighted average lacks interpretability, and the choice of weight remains controversial. In this work, under the principal stratification framework, we propose a causal estimand for the treatment effect under each of three clinically important principal strata: Always Responders, Never Responders, and Drug‐only Responders. To make the stratum treatment effect identifiable, we introduce a set of assumptions and two sensitivity parameters. By further considering the strata as latent characteristics, the sensitivity parameters can be estimated. An extensive simulation study is conducted to evaluate the operating characteristics of the proposed method. Finally, we apply our method on the ADAPT‐A study data to assess the benefit of low‐dose aripiprazole adjunctive to antidepressant therapy treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) trial used an equipoise stratified, randomized design to evaluate the relative efficacy and tolerability of various antidepressant treatments for outpatients with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder who had a lack of remission or could not tolerate the selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) citalopram. After unsuccessful treatment with a SSRI, approximately one in four patients had a remission of symptoms after switching to another antidepressant.

Importance: Acute agitation is common in patients with bipolar disorder and requires urgent management to relieve distress and to prevent escalation to aggressive behavior.Objective: To evaluate the effect of orally absorbed, sublingual dexmedetomidine, a selective α2A-adrenergic receptor agonist on symptoms of acute agitation in patients with bipolar disorder.Design, Setting, and Participants: Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 15 sites in the US with enrollment between February 24, 2020, and April 27, 2020, and final follow-up on May 21, 2020. A total of 380 adults with bipolar I or II disorder were randomized and 362 completed the study.Interventions: Participants were randomized to 3 groups: sublingual dexmedetomidine 180 μg (n = 127), sublingual dexmedetomidine 120 μg (n = 127), or placebo (n = 126).Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy end point was the mean change from baseline at 2 hours for the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Excited Component (PEC) total score. The range of possible total scores is 5 (absence of agitation) to 35 (extremely severe). The secondary end point was the earliest time of a statistically significant change in PEC total score from baseline for the drug vs placebo. On the primary efficacy end point, to account for multiplicity associated with comparing 2 sublingual dexmedetomidine doses with placebo, the 2-sided significance level for each dose vs placebo was set at .025.Results: Of 380 patients randomized (mean age, 45.6 years; 54.8% women; and 56.1% Black individuals), 378 (99.5%) self-administered the study medication and completed the study. Baseline agitation was mild to moderate, with an overall mean PEC total score of 18.0. Two hours after taking the medication, the mean changes from baseline in PEC total score were -10.4 for sublingual dexmedetomidine 180 μg, -9.0 for sublingual dexmedetomidine 120 μg, and -4.9 for placebo. Least-square mean differences from placebo in the sublingual dexmedetomidine groups at 2 hours were -5.4 (97.5% CI, -6.6 to -4.2) for 180 μg and -4.1 (97.5% CI, -5.3 to -2.9) for 120 μg (both doses P < .001 vs placebo). Treatment effects began 20 minutes after taking the medication among patients in the sublingual dexmedetomidine groups (least-square mean difference for 180 μg, -1.1 [97.5% CI, -2.0 to -0.2]; P = .007; for 120 μg, -1.0 [97.5% CI, -1.9 to -0.1]; P = .009). Adverse events occurred in 35.7% of patients taking 180 μg of dexmedetomidine, 34.9% taking 120 μg, and 17.5% taking placebo. The most common adverse events (≥5%) in the respective 180 μg, 120 μg, and placebo groups were somnolence (21.4% and 20.6% vs 4.8%); dry mouth (4.8% and 7.1% vs 0.8%); hypotension (6.3% and 4.8% vs 0%); and dizziness (5.6% and 5.6% vs 0.8%).Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with mild to moderate agitation associated with bipolar disorder, treatment with a sublingual film formulation of dexmedetomidine 120 μg or 180 μg, compared with placebo, resulted in significantly greater reduction in the agitation score at 2 hours. Further research is needed to understand the spectrum of patients for whom this treatment would be effective and feasible and to better understand the clinical importance of the observed effect size.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04276883. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Telehealth has provided many researchers, especially those conducting psychosocial research, with the tools necessary to transition from in-person to remote clinical trials during the COVID-19 pandemic. A growing body of research supports the effectiveness of telemental health for a variety of psychiatric conditions, but few studies have examined telemental health for individuals with comorbid medical diagnoses. Furthermore, little is known about the remote implementation of clinical trials examining telemental health interventions. Objective: This paper outlines the procedural modifications used to facilitate conversion of an in-person randomized controlled trial of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for depression in individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI; CBT-TBI) to a telemental health study administered remotely. Methods: Given the nature of remote implementation and specific challenges experienced by individuals with TBI, considerations related to treatment delivery, remote consent, data management, neuropsychological assessment, safety monitoring, and delivery of supportive material have been discussed. Feasibility, acceptability, and safety were evaluated by examining attendance and participant responses on self-report measures of treatment satisfaction and suicidal behavior. Results: High rates of treatment attendance, assessment completion, study retention, and satisfaction with the intervention and modality were reported by participants who completed at least one telemental health CBT-TBI session. Conclusions: Study modifications are necessary when conducting a study remotely, and special attention should be paid to comorbidities and population-specific challenges (eg, cognitive impairment). Preliminary data support the feasibility, acceptability, and safety of remotely conducting a randomized controlled trial of CBT-TBI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cohort and cost-effectiveness studies suggest that measuring variation in genes that influence metabolism of common drugs could improve antidepressant treatment outcomes. Prior randomized trials have yielded inconsistent results.Method: Multicenter randomized double-blind (subject and rater), controlled trial of pharmacogenomic testing among outpatients with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder. Study participants (n = 304) were randomized 1:1 to assay-guided treatment (AGT; N = 151) or treatment-as-usual (TAU; N = 153). Participants and raters were blinded to study arm; unblinded clinicians received results of a pharmacogenomic test and adjusted treatment in light of the test report. Primary outcome was change over 8 weeks in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (SIGH-D-17).Results: For the primary comparison of interest, change in SIGH-D-17, no significant difference was detected between AGT and TAU at Week 8 (p = .53). Rates of study completion also did not differ between the arms (AGT 92.7%, TAU 92.2% (χ2  = 0.03, df = 1, p = .86). Exploratory analyses suggested significantly fewer individuals experienced worsening of depressive symptoms following AGT, and that treatment concordant with assay results was associated with greater likelihood of remission.Conclusion: Pharmacogenomic testing using a panel of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic variants was not associated with significant improvement in the primary efficacy outcome when providers were unconstrained by the assay results. Further investigation is needed to understand the discordance with cost-effectiveness results and among randomized trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Despite the widespread awareness of functional magnetic resonance imaging findings suggesting a role for cortical connectivity networks in treatment selection for major depressive disorder, its clinical utility remains limited. Recent methodological advances have revealed functional magnetic resonance imaging-like connectivity networks using electroencephalography (EEG), a tool more easily implemented in clinical practice.Objective: To determine whether EEG connectivity could reveal neural moderators of antidepressant treatment.Design, Setting, and Participants: In this nonprespecified secondary analysis, data were analyzed from the Establishing Moderators and Biosignatures of Antidepressant Response in Clinic Care study, a placebo-controlled, double-blinded randomized clinical trial. Recruitment began July 29, 2011, and was completed December 15, 2015. A random sample of 221 outpatients with depression aged 18 to 65 years who were not taking medication for depression was recruited and assessed at 4 clinical sites. Analysis was performed on an intent-to-treat basis. Statistical analysis was performed from November 16, 2018, to May 23, 2019.Interventions: Patients received either the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor sertraline hydrochloride or placebo for 8 weeks.Main Outcomes and Measures: Electroencephalographic orthogonalized power envelope connectivity analyses were applied to resting-state EEG data. Intent-to-treat prediction linear mixed models were used to determine which pretreatment connectivity patterns were associated with response to sertraline vs placebo. The primary clinical outcome was the total score on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, administered at each study visit.Results: Of the participants recruited, 9 withdrew after first dose owing to reported adverse effects, and 221 participants (150 women; mean [SD] age, 37.8 [12.7] years) underwent EEG recordings and had high-quality pretreatment EEG data. After correction for multiple comparisons, connectome-wide analyses revealed moderation by connections within and between widespread cortical regions-most prominently parietal-for both the antidepressant and placebo groups. Greater alpha-band and lower gamma-band connectivity predicted better placebo outcomes and worse antidepressant outcomes. Lower connectivity levels in these moderating connections were associated with higher levels of anhedonia. Connectivity features that moderate treatment response differentially by treatment group were distinct from connectivity features that change from baseline to 1 week into treatment. The group mean (SD) score on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression was 18.35 (4.58) at baseline and 26.14 (30.37) across all time points.Conclusions and Relevance: These findings establish the utility of EEG-based network functional connectivity analyses for differentiating between responses to an antidepressant vs placebo. A role emerged for parietal cortical regions in predicting placebo outcome. From a treatment perspective, capitalizing on the therapeutic components leading to placebo response differentially from antidepressant response should provide an alternative direction toward establishing a placebo signature in clinical trials, thereby enhancing the signal detection in randomized clinical trials.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01407094. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the most important reasons for failure of placebo‐controlled randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) is the lack of appropriate methodologies for detecting treatment effect (TE; difference between placebo and active treatment response) in the presence of excessively low/high levels of placebo response. Although, the higher the level of placebo response in a trial, the lower the apparent detectable TE. TE is usually estimated in a conventional analysis of an RCT as an "apparent" TE value conditional to the level of placebo response in that RCT. A model‐informed methodology is proposed to establish a relationship between level of placebo response and TE. This relationship is used to estimate the "typical" TE associated with a "typical" level of placebo response, irrespective of the level of placebo response observed. The approach can be valuable for providing a reliable estimate of TE, for conducting risk/benefit analysis, and for determining dosage recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A Sequential Parallel Comparison Design has two stages, the first comparing drug to placebo and the second comparing drug to placebo among patients who did not respond to placebo in the first stage. The paper, Statistical Inference Problems in Sequential Parallel Comparison Designs, claims that the estimate of the treatment difference in the second stage is biased and that under certain circumstances, a suggested hypothesis test will reject the null hypothesis when it should be accepted. This rejoinder argues that the estimate in the second stage is not biased when the true target of estimation (estimand) is properly understood. Further, the null hypothesis that the authors posit is not the correct null hypothesis for clinical trials, and in the situation, they describe that the treatment should be considered to be effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Antipsychotic medications for the treatment of schizophrenia have limitations, and new treatments are needed. A prior pilot investigation suggested that adjunctive sodium nitroprusside (SNP) administered intravenously had rapid efficacy in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia.Objective: To determine the efficacy and tolerability of intravenous SNP infused at a rate of 0.5 μg/kg/min for 4 hours in patients with schizophrenia with some degree of treatment resistance.Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, randomized, double-blind acute treatment study using a sequential parallel comparison design conducted in two 2-week phases at 4 academic medical centers beginning May 20, 2015, and ending March 31, 2017. Participants were adults 18 to 65 years of age with a diagnosis of schizophrenia as confirmed by the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV, taking antipsychotic medication for at least 8 weeks, and had at least 1 failed trial of an antipsychotic medication within the past year. A total of 90 participants consented, 60 participants enrolled, and 52 participants were included in the analyses. A modified intent-to-treat analysis was used.Interventions: Participants were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to 1 of 3 treatment sequences: SNP and SNP, placebo and SNP, and placebo and placebo. The SNP and SNP group received SNP in phase 1 and SNP in phase 2 for the purpose of blinding, but the data from phase 2 were not included in the results. The placebo and SNP group received placebo in phase 1 and SNP in phase 2. If there was no response to placebo in phase 1, data from phase 2 were included in the analyses. The placebo and placebo group received placebo in both phases; if there was no response to placebo in phase 1, data from phase 2 were included in the analyses.Main Outcomes and Measures: Effectiveness of SNP compared with placebo in improving Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total, positive, and negative scores across each 2-week phase.Results: Fifty-two participants (12 women and 40 men) were included in the study. In the SNP and SNP group, the mean (SD) age was 47.1 (10.5) years. In the placebo and SNP group, the mean (SD) age was 45.9 (12.3) years. In the placebo and placebo group, the mean (SD) age was 40.4 (11.0) years. There were no significant differences between the SNP and placebo groups at baseline or in change from baseline for PANSS-total (weighted β = -1.04; z = -0.59; P = .57), PANSS-positive (weighted β = -0.62; z = -0.93; P = .35), or PANSS-negative (weighted β = -0.12; z = -0.19; P = .85) scores. No significant differences in safety or tolerability measures were identified.Conclusions and Relevance: Although intravenous SNP is well tolerated, it was not an efficacious adjunctive treatment of positive or negative symptoms of psychosis among outpatients with schizophrenia with prior history of treatment resistance.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02164981. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In clinical trials, placebo response can affect the inference about efficacy of the studied treatment. It is important to have a robust way to classify trial subjects with respect to their response to placebo. Simple, criterion-based classification may lead to classification error and bias the inference. The uncertainty about placebo response characteristic has to be factored into the treatment effect estimation. We propose a novel approach that views the placebo response as a latent characteristic and the study sample as an unlabeled mixture of "placebo responders" and "placebo nonresponders." The likelihood-based methodology is used to estimate the treatment effect corrected for placebo response as defined within sequential parallel comparison design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Major depressive disorder (MDD) remains challenging to treat. Although several clinical and demographic variables have been found to predict poor antidepressant response, these markers have not been robustly replicated to warrant implementation in clinical care. Increased pretreatment rostral anterior cingulate cortex (rACC) theta activity has been linked to better antidepressant outcomes. However, no prior study has evaluated whether this marker has incremental predictive validity over clinical and demographic measures.Objective: To determine whether increased pretreatment rACC theta activity would predict symptom improvement regardless of randomization arm.Design, Setting, and Participants: A multicenter randomized clinical trial enrolled outpatients without psychosis and with chronic or recurrent MDD between July 29, 2011, and December 15, 2015 (Establishing Moderators and Biosignatures of Antidepressant Response for Clinical Care [EMBARC]). Patients were consecutively recruited from 4 university hospitals: 634 patients were screened, 296 were randomized to receive sertraline hydrochloride or placebo, 266 had electroencephalographic (EEG) recordings, and 248 had usable EEG data. Resting EEG data were recorded at baseline and 1 week after trial onset, and rACC theta activity was extracted using source localization. Intent-to-treat analysis was conducted. Data analysis was performed from October 7, 2016, to January 19, 2018.Interventions: An 8-week course of sertraline or placebo.Main Outcomes and Measures: The 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score (assessed at baseline and weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8).Results: The 248 participants (160 [64.5%] women, 88 [35.5%] men) with usable EEG data had a mean (SD) age of 36.75 (13.15) years. Higher rACC theta activity at both baseline (b = -1.05; 95% CI, -1.77 to -0.34; P = .004) and week 1 (b = -0.83; 95% CI, -1.60 to -0.06; P < .04) predicted greater depressive symptom improvement, even when controlling for clinical and demographic variables previously linked with treatment outcome. These effects were not moderated by treatment arm. The rACC theta marker, in combination with clinical and demographic variables, accounted for an estimated 39.6% of the variance in symptom change (with 8.5% of the variance uniquely attributable to the rACC theta marker).Conclusions and Relevance: Increased pretreatment rACC theta activity represents a nonspecific prognostic marker of treatment outcome. This is the first study to date to demonstrate that rACC theta activity has incremental predictive validity.Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01407094. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The conventional statistical methodologies for evaluating treatment effect are based on hypothesis testing (P-value). Alternative measurements of treatment effect have been proposed for anti-infective treatments using the probability of target attainment. A general framework is proposed to extend this methodology to other therapeutic areas. A disease trial model is used for estimating the probability of reaching a treatment effect associated with relevant clinical benefits, in complement to the evaluation of the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis.A case study is presented in depression, where disease status is evaluated using bounded clinical scores (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale), and detectable treatment effect is inversely proportional to placebo response. The β-regression approach is used to model Hamilton scale scores, and a placebo-related criterion is proposed for determining the clinical benefit. The probability of reaching a clinical benefit represents a reliable criterion for replacing the P-value paradigm in the assessment of the outcomes of clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Depression is a common comorbidity in psoriasis, and both conditions are associated with systemic inflammation. The efficacy of ixekizumab, a high-affinity monoclonal antibody that selectively targets interleukin (IL)-17A, was evaluated in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis (psoriasis) and depressive symptoms that were at least moderately severe.Methods: Data were integrated from 3 randomized, double-blind, controlled phase 3 trials. At baseline and week 12, depressive symptoms and inflammation were assessed by the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomology - Self-Report (QIDS-SR16) and by a high-sensitivity assay of serum C-reactive protein (hsCRP), respectively. A subgroup of patients with at least moderately severe depressive symptoms at baseline (QIDS-SR16 total score ≥11) was analyzed. Improvement in psoriasis was assessed by the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI).Results: Approximately 10% of the overall psoriasis population had at least moderately severe depressive symptoms at baseline. At week 12, comorbid patients treated with ixekizumab had significantly greater improvements in their QIDS-SR16 total score (ixekizumab 80 mg every 2 weeks [Q2W], -7.1; ixekizumab 80 mg every 4 weeks [Q4W], -6.1) vs. placebo (-3.4) (p < 0.001, both comparisons) and higher rates of remission of depressive symptoms (ixekizumab Q2W, 45.2%; ixekizumab Q4W, 33.6%) vs. placebo (17.8%) (p ≤ 0.01, both comparisons). Patients treated with ixekizumab also had significant reductions in hsCRP and PASI compared to placebo. Etanercept treatment was not associated with significant improvements in depressive symptoms compared to placebo.Conclusions: In this comorbid population, 12 weeks of ixekizumab therapy resulted in remission of depression for approximately 40% of patients and improved systemic inflammation as indicated by hsCRP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: To determine if mavoglurant (modified release) as an augmentation therapy to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) could have beneficial effects reducing Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) total score in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) resistant to SSRI treatment.Methods: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 2 study. Patients remained on their SSRI treatment and mavoglurant or placebo was added on. Non-smoking men and women aged 18-65 years primarily diagnosed with OCD according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., text rev.; DSM-IV-TR) criteria were randomized (1:1) to mavoglurant or placebo groups. After 50 patients were randomized, an interim analysis was conducted to determine whether the study should be continued. The primary outcome measure was absolute change in Y-BOCS from baseline at week 17. Safety was assessed by recording adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs).Results: Interim analysis led to a decision to terminate the study. In total 38 (76.0%) participants completed 17 weeks of treatment and 37 (74.0%) completed the study. There was no significant difference in least squares (LS) mean change from baseline at week 17 in Y-BOCS total score for mavoglurant compared with placebo groups [-6.9 (1.75) vs. -8.0 (1.78), respectively; LS mean difference 1.1; 95% CI -3.9, 6.2; p = 0.671]. The incidence of AEs was higher in the mavoglurant compared with the placebo group (80.8% vs. 70.8%, respectively).Conclusion: This study of mavoglurant in OCD was terminated because of the lack of efficacy at interim analysis. The study did not support the use of an antagonist of mGluR5 receptors for OCD treatment.Trial Registration: The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01813019.Funding: This study was sponsored by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Ketamine, an N-methyl-d-aspartate glutamate receptor antagonist, has demonstrated a rapid-onset antidepressant effect in patients with treatment-resistant depression. This study evaluated the efficacy of twice- and thrice-weekly intravenous administration of ketamine in sustaining initial antidepressant effects in patients with treatment-resistant depression.Method: In a multicenter, double-blind study, adults (ages 18-64 years) with treatment-resistant depression were randomized to receive either intravenous ketamine (0.5 mg/kg of body weight) or intravenous placebo, administered over 40 minutes, either two or three times weekly, for up to 4 weeks. Patients who discontinued double-blind treatment after at least 2 weeks for lack of efficacy could enter an optional 2-week open-label phase to receive ketamine with the same frequency as in the double-blind phase. The primary outcome measure was change from baseline to day 15 in total score on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).Results: In total, 67 (45 women) of 68 randomized patients received treatment. In the twice-weekly dosing groups, the mean change in MADRS score at day 15 was -18.4 (SD=12.0) for ketamine and -5.7 (SD=10.2) for placebo; in the thrice-weekly groups, it was -17.7 (SD=7.3) for ketamine and -3.1 (SD=5.7) for placebo. Similar observations were noted for ketamine during the open-label phase (twice-weekly, -12.2 [SD=12.8] on day 4; thrice-weekly, -14.0 [SD=12.5] on day 5). Both regimens were generally well tolerated. Headache, anxiety, dissociation, nausea, and dizziness were the most common (≥20%) treatment-emergent adverse events. Dissociative symptoms occurred transiently and attenuated with repeated dosing.Conclusions: Twice-weekly and thrice-weekly administration of ketamine at 0.5 mg/kg similarly maintained antidepressant efficacy over 15 days. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: There is burgeoning interest in augmentation strategies for improving inadequate response to antidepressants. The adjunctive use of standardized pharmaceutical-grade nutrients, known as nutraceuticals, has the potential to modulate several neurochemical pathways implicated in depression. While many studies have been conducted in this area, to date no specialized systematic review (or meta-analysis) has been conducted.Method: A systematic search of PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted up to December 2015 for clinical trials using adjunctive nutrients for depression. Where sufficient data were available, a random-effects model analyzed the standard mean difference between treatment and placebo in the change from baseline to endpoint, combining the effect size data. Funnel plot and heterogeneity analyses were also performed.Results: Primarily positive results were found for replicated studies testing S-adenosylmethionine (SAMe), methylfolate, omega-3 (primarily EPA or ethyl-EPA), and vitamin D, with positive isolated studies for creatine, folinic acid, and an amino acid combination. Mixed results were found for zinc, folic acid, vitamin C, and tryptophan, with nonsignificant results for inositol. No major adverse effects were noted in the studies (aside from minor digestive disturbance). A meta-analysis of adjunctive omega-3 versus placebo revealed a significant and moderate to strong effect in favor of omega-3. Conversely, a meta-analysis of folic acid revealed a nonsignificant difference from placebo. Marked study heterogeneity was found in a Higgins test for both omega-3 and folic acid studies; funnel plots also revealed asymmetry (reflecting potential study bias).Conclusions: Current evidence supports adjunctive use of SAMe, methylfolate, omega-3, and vitamin D with antidepressants to reduce depressive symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Menopausal status and use of hormonal contraception or menopausal hormone therapy (HT) may affect treatment response to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). This report evaluates whether menopausal status and use of hormonal contraceptives or menopausal HT affect outcome in women treated with citalopram. Methods: In the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study, 896 premenopausal and 544 postmenopausal women were treated with citalopram for 12-14 weeks. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were used in adjusted analysis of the effect of menopausal status and use of hormonal contraceptives or menopausal HT on outcomes. Remission was defined as final Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression-17 (HRSD17) ≤7 or Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report (QIDS-SR16) score ≤5 and response as ≥50% decrease from the baseline QIDS-SR16 score. Results: Premenopausal and postmenopausal women differed in multiple clinical and demographic baseline variables but did not differ in response or remission rates. Premenopausal women taking hormonal contraceptives had significantly greater unadjusted remission rates on the HRSD17 and the QIDS-SR16 than women not taking contraception. Response and remission rates were not different between postmenopausal women taking vs. not taking HT. Adjusted results showed no significant difference in any outcome measure across menopause status in women who were not taking contraception/HT. There were no significant differences in adjusted results across HT status in premenopausal or postmenopausal women. Conclusions: In this study, citalopram treatment outcome was not affected by menopausal status. Hormonal contraceptives and HT also did not affect probability of good outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Despite the availability of effective treatments for depression, many patients under the care of primary care physicians do not achieve remission. Clinical Outcomes in Measurement-based Treatment ( COMET) was designed to assess whether communicating patient-reported depression symptom severity to primary care physicians affects patient outcomes at 6 months. Methods Nine hundred fifteen patients (intervention: n = 503; control: n = 412) diagnosed with major depressive disorder were enrolled in a prospective trial in which physician practice sites were assigned to either the intervention or control study arm. Only patients who were prescribed an antidepressant by their physician were eligible, but medication type was independent of the study protocol. Intervention-arm physicians received monthly updates on their patients' depression severity, which was determined with the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) administered during telephone interviews. Remission was defined as a PHQ-9 score <5 at 6 months; response was defined as a score reduction ≥50%. Results Among patients with baseline PHQ-9 score ≥5, 45.0% achieved remission (46.7% intervention versus 42.8% control) and 63.9% responded (67.0% intervention versus 59.7% control) at 6 months. After adjusting for baseline demographic and clinical variables, odds of remission (odds ratio [OR], 1.59 [95% CI, 1.07-2.37]) or response (OR, 2.02 [95% CI, 1.36-3.02]) were significantly greater for the intervention group than for control patients. Conclusions This study demonstrated that regular patient symptom monitoring with feedback to physicians improved outcomes of depression treatment in the primary care setting. Determining reasons for the high observed nonremission rates requires further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We assessed the efficacy of low-dose aripiprazole added to antidepressant therapy (ADT) in major depressive disorder (MDD) patients with inadequate response to prior ADT. Methods: As per the sequential parallel comparison design, 225 MDD subjects were randomized to adjunctive treatment with aripiprazole 2 mg/day or placebo across two 30-day phases, with a 2:3:3 randomization ratio to drug/drug (aripiprazole 2 mg/day in phase 1; 5 mg/day in phase 2), placebo/placebo (placebo in both phases), and placebo/drug (placebo in phase 1; aripiprazole 2 mg/day in phase 2). Eligible subjects were patients whose MDD was independently deemed 'valid' with SAFER criteria. Subjects had been receiving ADT for ≥8 weeks, and had inadequate response to ≥1 and <4 adequate ADTs in the current episode, as defined by the Antidepressant Treatment Response Questionnaire. Results: The pooled, weighted response difference between aripiprazole 2 mg/day and placebo in the two phases was 5.6% (p = 0.18; NS). The aripiprazole 2 mg/day-placebo difference on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale pooled across the two phases was -1.51 (p = 0.065; NS). Other secondary endpoint analyses showed nonsignificant pooled differences favoring aripiprazole over placebo. Of the 225 randomized subjects in phase 1, 2 dropped out in both arms, while in phase 2, of 138 phase 1 placebo nonresponders, 9 dropped out on aripiprazole and 5 on placebo. There were only minimal differences in adverse event rates between treatments, except for constipation, weight gain, and dry mouth, more common on aripiprazole. Conclusions: This study provides clear support for the tolerability of low-dose aripiprazole as an ADT-augmenting agent, with marginal efficacy. Copyright © 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The co-occurrence of substance use disorder (SUD) and major depressive disorder (MDD) is common and is often thought to impair response to antidepressant therapy. These patients are often excluded from clinical trials, resulting in a significant knowledge gap regarding optimal pharmacotherapy for the treatment of MDD with concurrent SUD. Methods In the Combining Medications to Enhance Depression Outcomes study, 665 adult outpatients with chronic and/or recurrent MDD were prospectively treated with either escitalopram monotherapy (escitalopram and placebo) or an antidepressant combination (venalfaxine-XR and mirtazapine or escitalopram and bupropion-SR). Participants with MDD and concurrent SUD (13.1%) were compared to those without SUD (86.9%) on sociodemographic and clinical characteristics at baseline and treatment response at 12- and 28-week endpoints. Results The participants with MDD and SUD were more likely to be male and have current suicidal thoughts/plans, and had a greater lifetime severity and number of suicide attempts, and a higher number of concurrent Axis I disorders, particularly concurrent anxiety disorders. There were no significant differences between the MDD with or without SUD groups in terms of dose, time in treatment, response or remission at week 12 and 28. Furthermore, no significant differences in response or remission rates were noted between groups on the basis of the presence or absence of SUD and treatment assignment. Conclusions Although significant baseline sociodemographic and clinical differences exist, patients with MDD and concurrent SUD are as likely to respond and remit to a single or combination antidepressant treatment as those presenting without SUD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study that aims to help clinicians develop a prognostic guideline for deciding whether to continue a particular antidepressant therapy when little or no benefit has yet been observed. It conducted a preliminary 12-week open-label trial with fluoxetine on subjects diagnosed with major depressive disorder and a subsequent 52-week continuation trial. It compared findings based on weeks 6, 8 and 12 to show the response rates at a variety of time frames.

The article evaluates two versions of the Concise Associated Symptom Tracking (CAST) scale, the CAST Clinician Rating (CAST-C) and CAST Self-Rated (CAST-SR), which are brief instruments that measure 5 relevant associated suicidality instruments domains of irritability, anxiety, mania, insomnia and panic. 256 outpatients with major depressive disorder (MDD) were enrolled in an open-label trial with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. The trial determined that the 16-item CAST-C and CAST-SR demonstrated excellent psychometric properties.

The article discusses a study to determine whether placebo-controlled antidepressant trials and major depressive disorder (MDD) can be shortened to less than four weeks. It examined the relationship between a positive or negative finding and outcome at end point in MDD placebo-controlled trials. The cutoff of 1980 was used in the research and final inclusion of articles was determined by consensus among authors. It concludes that antidepressant clinical trials cannot be shortened to less than 4 weeks to reliably detect drug versus placebo differences.

Abstract: An increased likelihood of receiving placebo in randomized clinical trials has been found to predict greater chances of trial success. However, patients who are less likely to receive active therapy (and more likely to receive placebo) may be at increased risk of attrition which, in turn, can limit the statistical power of a study. Therefore, in the present work, we sought to investigate the relationship between the probability of receiving placebo and the likelihood of prematurely discontinuing treatment. Medline/Pubmed publication databases were searched for RCT in MDD. A meta-regression established that the likelihood of receiving placebo did not predict either antidepressant discontinuation rates, placebo-discontinuation rates or the risk ratio of discontinuing antidepressants versus placebo. An increased likelihood of receiving placebo did not inflate discontinuation rates which did not influence the degree of antidepressant-placebo “separation”. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Introduction: This article presents baseline findings that describe how nonclinical factors were associated with patient use of psychiatric and general medical care and how those relationships changed after patients enrolled in the 41-site Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression study (STAR*D). Aims: STAR*D offered adult outpatients with major depression diligently delivered, measurement-based care. To achieve full remission within a tolerable medication dose, recommendations for treatment based on routine symptom and side-effect measurements were discussed with patients by clinical research coordinators and offered to clinicians who could flexibly tailor that guidance to accommodate individual patient needs. Medications were provided gratis. Pre- and post-enrollment data came from provider records and from patient face-to-face, telephone, and computer-assisted surveys. Two-part nested mixed models assessed patient likelihood and volume of mental and general medical care services. Results: Prior to enrollment, predisposing (gender, race, education, and care attitude), affordability (private insurance), and clinical factors (depressive symptoms and mental and physical functioning) were found to be important drivers of patient use of psychiatric and general medical care. After STAR*D enrollment, however, predisposing factors were less important drivers of psychiatric service use but remained important drivers of general medical care. Conclusions: Data suggest diligent, measurement-based mental health programs may reduce race, gender, and education disparities in the use of needed mental health care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors provide an overview of the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study (www.star-d.org), a largescale practical clinical trial to determine which of several treatments are the most effective "next-steps" for patients with major depressive disorder whose symptoms do not remit or who cannot tolerate an initial treatment and, if needed, ensuing treatments. Entry criteria were broadly defined and inclusive, and patients were enrolled from psychiatric and primary care clinics. All participants began on citalopram and were managed by clinic physicians, who followed an algorithm-guided acute-phase treatment through five visits over 12 weeks. At the end of each sequence, patients whose depression had not fully remitted were eligible for subsequent randomized trials in a sequence of up to three clinical trials. In general, remission rates in the study clinics were lower than expected, suggesting the need for several steps to achieve remission for most patients. There was no clear medication "winner" for patients whose depression did not remit after one or more aggressive medication trials. Both switching and augmenting appeared to be reasonable options when an initial antidepressant treatment failed, although these two strategies could not be directly compared. Further, the likelihood of remission after two vigorous medication trials substantially decreased, and remission would likely require more complicated medication regimens for which the existing evidence base is quite thin. STAR*D demonstrated that inclusion of more real-world patients in clinical trials is both feasible and informative. Policy implications of the findings, as well as the study's limitations, are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractBackground:Understanding patients’ ambivalence about treatment persistence may be useful in tailoring retention interventions for individual patients with major depressive disorder. Methods:Participants (n = 265) with major depressive disorder were enrolled into an 8-week trial with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. At baseline and week 2, the participants were asked about their intent to return for the next visit, complete the study and continue in the study should they experience side effects or no improvement. Dropouts were defined as participants who discontinued attending clinic visits before completing the trial. Results:Participants who at baseline reported an uncertain/negative intent to continue if they experienced side effects or no improvement dropped out at a significantly higher rate by weeks 6 and 8. Uncertain/negative intent at week 2 predicted attrition at all following visits. Dropouts without side effects were more likely to have reported an uncertain/negative intent to attend at both baseline and week 2, while dropouts who experienced side effects were more likely to have reported an uncertain/negative intent to attend only at baseline. Positive intent to continue was associated with greater symptom improvement in both dropouts and completers despite the possibility of lack of efficacy. Conclusions:Participants’ pretreatment concerns about continuing antidepressant treatment in the presence of side effects signals challenges to the completion of a full 8-week acute phase treatment, even if the participant does not develop side effects. Individualized review of concerns and tailoring appropriate interventions may be necessary to reduce attrition.Copyright © 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical trials often require subjects to sign medical record releases to allow investigators to measure treatment fidelity, off-protocol care use, and care costs. Little is known, however, if limiting samples to those willing to sign releases impacts external validity. Data came from outpatients with non-psychotic major depressive disorder who enrolled in the multisite Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study. Differences between those who signed (n = 3116) and who did not sign (n = 925) releases were assessed using logistic regression and two-part, three-level log-transformed regression models, corrected for site clustering and repeated measures. Patients who released records tended to believe care was helpful, were younger, and married. However, release status had little material or consistent associations with patient health outcomes or use of care. With appropriate adjustments to data, requiring patient medical records may pose only minimal challenges to external validity in cost-outcome studies. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Outcomes of antidepressant medication treatment for major depressive disorder include remission, response, and nonresponse. But nonresponse can include depression that worsened over the course of treatment, an outcome that has received scant attention. Objective: To describe baseline sociodemographic, clinical, and treatment characteristics associated with worsened depression during a trial of citalopram. Design, participants, and settings: Open-label clinical trial of 2,876 adult outpatients seen in 18 primary and 23 psychiatric-care settings. Intervention: Citalopram was delivered using measurement-based care and flexible dosing with the aim of achieving symptom remission. Symptom and side effect ratings were obtained at each treatment visit. Main outcome measures: Worsened depression was defined as an exit score ≥3 points above the pretreatment (baseline) score on the 16-item QIDS-SR. Baseline sociodemographic, clinical, and treatment characteristics were examined for association with worsened depression. Results: Of 2,864 outpatients who returned for ≥2 post baseline visits, 150 (5.2%) had worsened depression at study exit. Baseline characteristics independently associated with increased worsened depression included African-American race (OR=2.02), having less than a college education (OR=2.36), posttraumatic stress disorder (OR=1.78), drug abuse (OR=1.97), hypochondriasis (OR=2.74). Participants with worsened depression spent less time in treatment; had fewer treatment visits; exited the study sooner; had more frequent, intense, and burdensome adverse effects; and were more intolerant of medication. Conclusions: The presence of certain baseline characteristics indicated a greater likelihood of worsened depression during antidepressant treatment. Patients with these characteristics should be monitored closely during treatment and may be candidates for more aggressive treatment. Depression and Anxiety, 2009. Published 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author comments on the translation of the content of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for improving real-world clinical practice. A major cause of the efficacy-effectiveness gap is the failure to implement treatments identified in RCTs. The author says the use of outcomes instruments may enhance the patient-centeredness of the mental health care experience. The integration of outcomes measurement and patient involvement has formed the basis for large-scale clinical trials of both bipolar disorder and unipolar major depression.

Abstract: Substantial and highly variable placebo response rates represent a major obstacle to antidepressant development in major depressive disorder (MDD). However, whether the likelihood of receiving active treatment or placebo, a proxy of the degree of expectation of improvement, may itself influence clinical trial outcome is unclear. The goal of this work was to examine whether the probability of receiving placebo influences clinical trial outcome antidepressant MDD trials. Medline/Pubmed publication databases were searched for randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of antidepressants for adults with MDD. 146 manuscripts involving 182 clinical trials were pooled (n = 36,385). Pooled response rates for drug and placebo were 53.8% and 37.3%. A meta-regression (random-effects) established that the probability of receiving placebo, year of publication, and baseline severity were independent predictors of the risk ratio of responding to antidepressants versus placebo. Specifically, a greater probability of receiving placebo, greater baseline severity and an earlier year of publication predicted greater antidepressant-placebo “efficacy separation”. Fixed versus flexible dose design, trial duration and population age did not influence clinical trial outcome. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Whether the acute outcomes of major depressive disorder (MDD) treated in primary (PC) or specialty care (SC) settings are different is unknown.Objective: To compare the treatment and outcomes for depressed outpatients treated in primary versus specialty settings with citalopram in the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study (www.star-d.org), a broadly inclusive effectiveness trial.Design: Open clinical trial with citalopram for up to 14 weeks at 18 primary and 23 specialty sites. Participants received measurement-based care with 5 recommended treatment visits, manualized pharmacotherapy, ongoing support and guidance by a clinical research coordinator, the use of structured evaluation of depressive symptoms and side effects at each visit, and a centralized treatment monitoring and feedback system.Participants: A total of 2,876 previously established outpatients in primary (n = 1091) or specialty (n = 1785) with nonpsychotic depression who had at least 1 post-baseline measure.Measurements and Main Results: Remission (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale for Depression [Hamilton] or 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Rated [QIDS-SR(16)]); response (QIDS-SR(16)); time to first remission (QIDS-SR(16)). Remission rates by Hamilton (26.6% PC vs 28.0% SC, p = .40) and by QIDS-SR(16) (32.5% PC vs 33.1% SC, p = .78) and response rates by QIDS-SR(16) (45.7% PC vs 47.6% SC, p = .33) were not different. For those who reached remission or response at exit, the time to remission (6.2 weeks PC vs 6.9 weeks SC, p = .12) and to response (5.5 weeks PC vs 5.4 weeks SC, p = .97) did not differ by setting.Conclusions: Identical remission and response rates can be achieved in primary and specialty settings when identical care is provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The evaluation of new drug entities with specific modes of action may be hampered by rigid diagnostic classification systems and patient selection processes that do not focus on the anticipated symptomatic, behavioral, and functional outcomes to be achieved. Patients enrolled in central nervous system (CNS) clinical trials may present with a heterogeneous group of symptoms representing several syndromes or subtypes, subsumed under the same diagnosis in the DSM-IV classification system. As a result, enrolled patients may not have the valid illness characteristics of interest to the particular study. We propose that clinical drug development needs to focus on the primary nosological entity likely to be affected by a new drug entity's mode of action. Ideally, a valid patient will have the acute primary symptoms that the novel drug is supposed to influence. In this article, we propose operational criteria to delineate a more symptom-specific and ecologically valid approach to the identification of the valid patient for clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objective: To compare response rates among patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) treated with either a serotonin-2 (5HT2-) receptor antagonist or a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI). Methods: Medline and PubMed were searched for double-blind, randomized clinical trials comparing either trazodone or nefazodone with an SSRI for the treatment of MDD. Data from 9 reports involving a total 988 patients were identified and combined using a random-effects model. Results: Patients randomized to treatment with a 5HT2 antagonist were as likely to experience clinical response as patients randomized to treatment with an SSRI (RR=1.002, 95% CI: 0.85–1.17, P =0.978). Pooled response rates for trazodone/nefazodone and the SSRIs were 61.1% and 61.7%, respectively. There was also no difference in overall discontinuation rates (P =0.334), discontinuation due to adverse events (P =0.676), or discontinuation due to inefficacy (P =0.289) between the two groups. Conclusions: These results suggest that the 5HT2-receptor antagonists trazodone and nefazodone and the SSRIs do not differ with respect to their overall efficacy and tolerability in the treatment of MDD. Although the sample size was relatively large and conveyed sufficient statistical power to test for differences in the overall sample, depression is a heterogeneous condition and differences may exist between treatments in particular subgroups of patients. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objective: Premature attrition from treatment may lead to worse outcomes and compromise the integrity of clinical trials in major depressive disorder. The purpose of this study was to identify the pretreatment predictors of attrition during acute treatment with citalopram in a large, ‘real world’ clinical trial. Method: A total of 4,041 adult outpatients with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder were enrolled in treatment with citalopram for up to 14 weeks. Attrition was defined as ‘immediate’ (patients who attended a baseline visit only) or ‘later’ (patients who attended at least one postbaseline visit but who dropped out before the 12-week visit). Results: Overall, 26% of enrolled patients dropped out of the acute phase treatment for nonmedical reasons. Of these, 34% dropped out immediately, 59% dropped out by week 12, and 7% dropped out after 12 weeks, Immediate attrition was associated with younger age, less education, and higher perceived mental health functioning. Attrition later in treatment was associated with younger age, less education, and African American race. Experience with more than one episode of depression was associated with less attrition. Conclusions: In clinical trials and clinical practice, several time points in treatment may provide opportunities to engage and encourage populations at higher risk for attrition and populations with high-risk presentation of illness. Additionally, more aggressive forms of treatment implemented earlier in the treatment process in order to increase the likelihood of more rapid efficacy may reduce dropout rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To test the hypothesis that in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), the response for specific Hamilton Depression Rating Scale items will differ for duloxetine compared with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and that patterns of response will differ based on symptom severity at baseline. Method: Data were pooled from all Lilly-sponsored clinical trials where duloxetine was compared with placebo and an SSRI in patients with MDD: 7 randomized, double-blind, fixed-dose, 8-week studies of duloxetine (n = 1,133) versus SSRI (n = 689) versus placebo (n = 641). Duloxetine doses were 40, 60, 80 and 120 mg/day. SSRI doses were 10 mg/day (escitalopram) and 20 mg/day (fluoxetine and paroxetine). Results: Compared to SSRI-treated patients, duloxetine-treated patients had a significantly greater (p ≤ 0.05) reduction in the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD17) total score and HAMD17 items of work and activities, psychomotor retardation, genital symptoms and hypochondriasis. Differences favoring the SSRIs approached significance for middle insomnia (p = 0.057) and late insomnia (p = 0.06), with effect sizes at least twice the magnitude of the corresponding effect sizes for duloxetine. Similarly, the advantage for duloxetine versus the SSRIs approached significance for general somatic symptoms (p = 0.056), with an effect size twice that observed for the SSRIs. The HAMD17 total score difference was driven mostly by patients with lower baseline MDD severity (HAMD17 total score ≤19), where the HAMD17 effect size advantage for duloxetine over combined SSRIs was statistically significant (p = 0.031). Conclusion: Potentially important differences in symptom response patterns were found between duloxetine and the combined SSRIs depending on symptom severity, and different HAMD17 items responded differently to duloxetine compared with SSRIs. Understanding these differences may be useful in tailoring antidepressant therapy for individual patients. Copyright © 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Context: Over the past few years, a number of studies have emerged suggesting that the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) with antidepressants which enhance both noradrenergic as well as serotonergic neurotransmission may result in higher response or remission rates than treatment with antidepressants which selectively enhance serotonergic neurotransmission. Objective: The objective of this paper was to compare response rates among patients with MDD treated with either milnacipran, an antidepressant thought to simultaneously enhance both noradrenergic and serotonergic neurotransmission, or a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI). Data sources: Medline/Pubmed were searched. No year of publication or language limits were used. Study selection: Double-blind, randomized clinical trials comparing milnacipran with an SSRI for the treatment of MDD. Data extraction: Data were extracted with the use of a pre-coded form. Data synthesis: Analyses were performed comparing response rates between the two antidepressant agents. Data from 6 reports involving a total of 1082 outpatients with MDD were identified and combined using a random-effects model. Patients randomized to treatment with milnacipran were as likely to experience clinical response as patients randomized to treatment with an SSRI according to the MADRS (RR=1.04, 95% CI: 0.88–1.23, p =0.533) or the HDRS (RR=1.06, 95% CI: 0.90–1.24, p =0.456) for the random effects model. Simply pooling MADRS-based response rates between the two agents revealed a 58.9% response rate for milnacipran and a 58.3% response rate for the SSRIs. Similarly, HDRS-based response rates were 59.7% and 57.5%. There was also no difference in overall discontinuation rates (RR=0.93; 95% CI: 0.76–1.14; p =0.506), the rate of discontinuation due to adverse events (RR=0.77; 95% CI: 0.55–1.1; p =0.157), or the rate of discontinuation due to inefficacy (RR=0.98; 95% CI: 0.7–1.38; p =0.95) between the two groups. Conclusions: These results suggest that milnacipran and the SSRIs do not differ with respect to their overall efficacy in the treatment of MDD. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objective: To compare response rates among patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) treated with either moclobemide, an antidepressant thought to simultaneously enhance both noradrenergic and serotonergic neurotransmission, or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Methods: Using a random-effects model, we combined 12 trials involving 1207 outpatients with MDD. Results: Patients treated with moclobemide were as likely to experience clinical response as those treated with SSRIs (risk ratio 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.92 to 1.26; P = 0.314). Simply pooling response rates for the 2 agents resulted in a 62.1% response rate for moclobemide and a 57.5% response rate for the SSRIs. A metaregression did not reveal a statistically significant relation between the mean moclobemide dosage for each study and the risk ratio for response rates. Further, we found no difference between the 2 treatments in overall discontinuation rates, discontinuation rates due to adverse events, or discontinuation rates due to lack of efficacy. Also, rates of fatigue or somnolence and of insomnia were similar between the 2 treatment groups. However, SSRI treatment was associated with higher rates of nausea, headaches, and treatment-emergent anxiety than was treatment with moclobemide. Conclusions: These results suggest that moclobemide and the SSRIs do differ with respect to their side effect profiles but not in their overall efficacy in the treatment of MDD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context Children of depressed parents have high rates of anxiety, disruptive, and depressive disorders that begin early, often continue into adulthood, and are impairing. Objective To determine whether effective treatment with medication of women with major depression is associated with reduction of symptoms and diagnoses in their children. Design Assessments of children whose depressed mothers were being treated with medication as part of the multicenter Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) trial conducted (between December 16, 2001 and April 24, 2004) in broadly representative primary and psychiatric outpatient practices. Children were assessed by a team of evaluators not involved in maternal treatment and unaware of maternal outcomes. Study is ongoing with cases followed at 3-month intervals. Setting and Patients One hundred fifty-one mother-child pairs in 8 primary care and 11 psychiatric outpatient clinics across 7 regional centers in the United States. Children were aged 7 to 17 years. Main Outcome Measures Child diagnoses based on the Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia; child symptoms based on the Child Behavior Checklist; child functioning based on the Child Global Assessment Scale in mothers whose depression with treatment remitted with a score of 7 or lower or whose depression did not remit with a score higher than 7 on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. Results Remission of maternal depression after 3 months of medication treatment was significantly associated with reductions in the children's diagnoses and symptoms. There was an overall 11% decrease in rates of diagnoses in children of mothers whose depression remitted compared with an approximate 8% increase in rates of diagnoses in children of mothers whose depression did not. This rate difference remained statistically significant after controlling for the child's age and sex, and possible confounding factors (P = .01). Of the children with a diagnosis at baseline, remission was reported in 33% of those whose mothers' depression remitted compared with only a 12% remission rate among children of mothers whose depression did not remit. All children of mothers whose depression remitted after treatment and who themselves had no baseline diagnosis for depression remained free of psychiatric diagnoses at 3 months, whereas 17% of the children whose mothers remained depressed acquired a diagnosis. Findings were similar using child symptoms as an outcome. Greater level of maternal response was associated with fewer current diagnoses and symptoms in the children, and a maternal response of at least 50% was required to detect an improvement in the child. Conclusions Remission of maternal depression has a positive effect on both mothers and their children, whereas mothers who remain depressed may increase the rates of their children's disorders. These findings support the importance of vigorous treatment for depressed mothers in primary care or psychiatric clinics and suggest the utility of evaluating the children, especially children whose mothers continue to be depressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Psychiatry is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

STAR*D is a multisite, prospective, randomized, multistep clinical trial of outpatients with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder. The study compares various treatment options for those who do not attain a satisfactory response with citalopram, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressant. The study enrolls 4000 adults (ages 18–75) from both primary and specialty care practices who have not had either a prior inadequate response or clear-cut intolerance to a robust trial of protocol treatments during the current major depressive episode. After receiving citalopram (level 1), participants without sufficient symptomatic benefit are eligible for randomization to level 2 treatments, which entail four switch options (sertraline, bupropion, venlafaxine, cognitive therapy) and three citalopram augment options (bupropion, buspirone, cognitive therapy). Those who receive cognitive therapy (switch or augment options) at level 2 without sufficient improvement are eligible for randomization to one of two level 2A switch options (venlafaxine or bupropion). Level 2 and 2A participants without sufficient improvement are eligible for random assignment to two switch options (mirtazapine or nortriptyline) and to two augment options (lithium or thyroid hormone) added to the primary antidepressant (citalopram, bupropion, sertraline, or venlafaxine) (level 3). Those without sufficient improvement at level 3 are eligible for level 4 random assignment to one of two switch options (tranylcypromine or the combination of mirtazapine and venlafaxine). The primary outcome is the clinician-rated, 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, administered at entry and exit from each treatment level through telephone interviews by assessors masked to treatment assignments. Secondary outcomes include self-reported depressive symptoms, physical and mental function, side-effect burden, client satisfaction, and health care utilization and cost. Participants with an adequate symptomatic response may enter the 12-month naturalistic follow-up phase with brief monthly and more complete quarterly assessments. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: There are few available antidepressants for pediatric Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to review industry-funded studies of antidepressants in children and adolescents with MDD, and to better understand the contribution of study design and placebo response to the findings of these studies.Methods: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials that compared antidepressant with placebo for the acute treatment of MDD in children and/or adolescents were selected. Estimates of the standardized mean difference (SMD) in change in Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised scores were pooled, after examining for heterogeneity. A random-effects meta-analysis was completed.Results: Thirty-four antidepressant-placebo comparisons, involving 6161 subjects, were included. The SMD among all studies was 0.12 (CI 0.08, 0.17; p < 0.001), a very small effect size, lower than that seen in studies of adults with MDD. When the meta-analysis was limited to studies with a low mean placebo response, the SMD increased to 0.19 and further increased to 0.22 when studies with at least a 50% chance of receiving placebo were included.Limitations: Many studies focused on older children and younger adolescents. Our findings may not reflect antidepressant efficacy in older adolescents.Conclusions: The modest SMD identified in this analysis may reflect study design factors and the application of antidepressants developed for adults to pediatric patients. Given the urgent clinical need for more pediatric MDD treatments, the influence of placebo response and the need for drug development tailored to this population should be considered in pediatric MDD trial design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Uncontrolled levels of placebo response is a major reason of trial failure. • Individual propensity to respond to placebo is not controlled by randomization. • Artificial intelligence propensity weighting is used to estimate treatment effect. • The estimated a treatment effect is adjusted for high/low placebo response. One of the major reasons for trial failures in major depressive disorders (MDD) is the presence of unpredictable levels of placebo response as the individual baseline propensity to respond to placebo is not adequately controlled by the current randomization and statistical methodologies. The individual propensity to respond to any treatment or intervention assessed at baseline was considered as a major non-specific prognostic and confounding effect. The objective of this paper was to apply the propensity score methodology to control for potential imbalance at baseline in the propensity to respond to placebo in clinical trials in MDD. Individual propensity was estimated using artificial intelligence (AI) applied to observations collected in two pre-randomization occasions. Cases study are presented using data from two randomized, placebo-controlled trials to evaluate the efficacy of paroxetine in MDD. AI models were used to estimate the individual propensity probability to show a treatment non-specific placebo effect. The inverse of the estimated probability was used as weight in the mixed-effects analysis to assess treatment effect. The comparison of the results obtained with and without propensity weight indicated that the weighted analysis provided an estimate of treatment effect and effect size significantly larger than the conventional analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although clinicians frequently add a second medication to an initial, ineffective antidepressant drug, no randomized controlled trial has compared the efficacy of this approach. Methods: We randomly assigned 565 adult outpatients who had nonpsychotic major depressive disorder without remission despite a mean of 11.9 weeks of citalopram therapy (mean final dose, 55 mg per day) to receive sustained-release bupropion (at a dose of up to 400 mg per day) as augmentation and 286 to receive buspirone (at a dose of up to 60 mg per day) as augmentation. The primary outcome of remission of symptoms was defined as a score of 7 or less on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD-17) at the end of this study; scores were obtained over the telephone by raters blinded to treatment assignment. The 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology — Self-Report (QIDS-SR-16) was used to determine the secondary outcomes of remission (defined as a score of less than 6 at the end of this study) and response (a reduction in baseline scores of 50 percent or more). Results: The sustained-release bupropion group and the buspirone group had similar rates of HRSD-17 remission (29.7 percent and 30.1 percent, respectively), QIDS-SR-16 remission (39.0 percent and 32.9 percent), and QIDS-SR-16 response (31.8 percent and 26.9 percent). Sustained-release bupropion, however, was associated with a greater reduction (from baseline to the end of this study) in QIDS-SR-16 scores than was buspirone (25.3 percent vs. 17.1 percent, P<0.04), a lower QIDS-SR-16 score at the end of this study (8.0 vs. 9.1, P<0.02), and a lower dropout rate due to intolerance (12.5 percent vs. 20.6 percent, P<0.009). Conclusions: Augmentation of citalopram with either sustained-release bupropion or buspirone appears to be useful in actual clinical settings. Augmentation with sustained-release bupropion does have certain advantages, including a greater reduction in the number and severity of symptoms and fewer side effects and adverse events. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00021528.) N Engl J Med 2006;354:1243-52. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Provides information on the STAR*D treatment trial for depression, a multisite, prospective, sequentially randomized controlled trial of outpatients with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder. Use of randomization to compare various switching or augmenting strategies; Inclusion of self-declared patients seeking treatment at either primary or specialty care practices.

The lack of biomarkers to inform antidepressant selection is a key challenge in personalized depression treatment. This work identifies candidate biomarkers by building deep learning predictors of individual treatment outcomes using reward processing measures from functional magnetic resonance imaging, clinical assessments, and demographics. Participants in the EMBARC (Establishing Moderators and Biosignatures of Antidepressant Response in Clinical Care) study (n = 222) underwent reward processing task-based functional magnetic resonance imaging at baseline and were randomized to 8 weeks of sertraline (n = 106) or placebo (n = 116). Subsequently, sertraline nonresponders (n = 37) switched to 8 weeks of bupropion. The change in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale was measured after treatment. Reward processing, clinical measurements, and demographics were used to train treatment-specific deep learning models. The predictive model for sertraline achieved R 2 of 48% (95% CI, 33%–61%; p < 10−3) in predicting the change in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and number-needed-to-treat (NNT) of 4.86 participants in predicting response. The placebo model achieved R 2 of 28% (95% CI, 15%–42%; p < 10−3) and NNT of 2.95 in predicting response. The bupropion model achieved R 2 of 34% (95% CI, 10%–59%, p < 10−3) and NNT of 1.68 in predicting response. Brain regions where reward processing activity was predictive included the prefrontal cortex and cerebellar crus 1 for sertraline and the cingulate cortex, caudate, orbitofrontal cortex, and crus 1 for bupropion. These findings demonstrate the utility of reward processing measurements and deep learning to predict antidepressant outcomes and to form multimodal treatment biomarkers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]