Search

Background Lithium augmentation of antidepressants for treatment of unipolar major depression was one of the first adjunctive strategies based on a neuropharmacologic rationale. Randomized controlled trials supported its efficacy but most trials added lithium to tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs). Despite its efficacy, use of lithium augmentation remains infrequent. The current systematic review and meta-analysis examines the efficacy of lithium augmentation as an adjunct to second generation antidepressants as well as to TCAs and considers reasons for its infrequent use. Method A systematic search of Medline and the Cochrane Clinical Trials database was performed. Randomized, placebo-controlled trials of lithium augmentation were selected. A fixed-effects meta-analysis was performed. Odds ratios for response were calculated for each treatment-control contrast, for the trials grouped by type of initial antidepressant (TCA or second generation antidepressant), and as a meta-analytic summary for all treatments combined. Results Nine trials that included 237 patients were selected. The odds ratio for response to lithium vs. placebo in all contrasts combined was 2.89 (95% CI 1.65, 5.05, z=3.72, p=0.0002). Heterogeneity was very low, I²=0%. Adjunctive lithium was effective with TCAs (7 contrasts) and with second generation agents (3 contrasts). Discontinuation due to adverse events was infrequent and did not differ between lithium and placebo. Limitations The meta-analysis is limited by the small size and number of trials and limited data for treatment resistant patients. Conclusions Adjunctive lithium appears to be as effective for second generation antidepressants as it was for the tricyclics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a research study on antidepressants and its efficacy for the treatment of late-life major depressive disorder (MDD). Study subjects include elderly and late-life patients with MDD in a randomized placebo-controlled trials for antidepressants including amitriptyline, imipramine and clomipramine and compared them with various studies. Conclusions indicated there is antidepressant efficacy in late-life MDD and reduced efficacy in MDD patients 65 years old and older.

Background: Uncontrolled antidepressant trials suggest that anxious patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) are less responsive to antidepressant treatment than less anxious patients. The objective of this study is to determine whether specific antidepressant effects, estimated by drug-placebo differences, are reduced in anxious depression during treatment of MDD with duloxetine. Methods: This is a retrospective secondary pooled analysis of all placebo-controlled trials of duloxetine at therapeutic doses conducted by the sponsor in outpatients with nonpsychotic unipolar MDD, using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD). Anxious depression was defined by ≥7 on the anxiety/somatization factor of the HAMD. Response was defined as ≥50% improvement from baseline to endpoint on the HAMD. Remission was defined as an endpoint HAMD≤7. Analyses were performed in the intent-to-treat sample with at least one post-treatment rating. Results: Eleven trials included 2,841 patients of whom 1,326 were classified as anxious and 1,515 as nonanxious. Change on the HAMD was greater with duloxetine than placebo in both anxious (9.91 versus 7.55, P<.001) and nonanxious (6.65 versus 5.23, P<.001) patients. Level of anxiety had no effect on the drug–placebo differences. Response and remission rates were significantly greater in duloxetine than placebo-treated patients and drug–placebo differences were unaffected by anxious status. Use of HAMD items psychic and somatic anxiety to define anxious subgroups had similar outcomes. Conclusions: Duloxetine was more effective than placebo in achieving response and remission in both anxious and nonanxious patients. Anxious status did not affect the magnitude of the drug effect. Depression and Anxiety, 2010. © 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Although antipsychotic agents have a long history of use in depression, their effectiveness in treating core symptoms of depression such as loss of interest has been questioned. Adjunctive aripiprazole is beneficial for the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder but its effects on specific symptoms have not been reported. The objective of this study was to examine the effects of aripiprazole on core symptoms of depression. Methods: This is a post-hoc, pooled analysis of two trials of aripiprazole augmentation of standard antidepressants (ADT) in patients with major depression. Patients with an inadequate response to ADT received adjunctive aripiprazole (n =373) or placebo (n =368) for 6weeks. Change on four subscales of the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D17) that capture core depression symptoms was determined and change on individual HAM-D items also was assessed. The magnitude of within-group change for the subscales and individual items was expressed as effect size (ES) and between-group significance tested with ANCOVA. The magnitude of change was also examined comparing the response rates for aripiprazole and placebo on HAM-D17 and the four subscales. Change on three composite subscales — anxiety, insomnia and drive was also examined. Results: Within-group change on the four core subscales was substantial (ES=1.1–1.2) and similar to that for the 17-item HAM-D total score. Between-group comparisons indicated mean change and response rates were significantly greater with adjunctive aripiprazole than placebo for each core subscale (all p <0.01). Individual HAM-D17 items showing the greatest change from baseline with adjunctive aripiprazole: depressed mood (within-group ES=1.03) work and activities (ES=0.86), guilt (ES=0.77) and psychic anxiety (ES=0.67) are the same symptoms identified by each of the core subscales and each of these items differed significantly from change on that item with placebo (p <0.01). On three composite scales, adjunctive aripiprazole was significantly more effective than placebo with respect to mean change for anxiety, insomnia and drive (all p <0.001). Conclusions: Aripiprazole augmentation of standard ADT results in significant, clinically meaningful changes in the core symptoms of depression. It is also associated with significant change in anxiety, insomnia, and drive components of the 17-item HAM-D. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objective: The authors sought to determine by meta-analysis the efficacy and tolerability of adjunctive atypical antipsychotic agents in major depressive disorder. Method: Searches were conducted of MEDLINE/PubMed (1966 to January 2009), the Cochrane database, abstracts of major psychiatric meetings since 2000, and online trial registries. Manufacturers of atypical antipsychotic agents without online registries were contacted. Trials selected were acute-phase, parallel-group, double-blind controlled trials with random assignment to adjunctive atypical antipsychotic or placebo. Patients had nonpsychotic unipolar major depressive disorder that was resistant to prior antidepressant treatment. Response, remission, and discontinuation rates were either reported or obtained. Data were extracted by one author and checked by the second. Data included study design, number of patients, patient characteristics, methods of establishing treatment resistance, drug doses, duration of the adjunctive trial, depression scale used, response and remission rates, and discontinuation rates for any reason or for adverse events. Results: Sixteen trials with 3,480 patients were pooled using a fixed-effects meta-analysis. Adjunctive atypical antipsychotics were significantly more effective than placebo (response: odds ratio 1.69, 95% Cl=1.46-1.95, z=7.00, N=16, p<0.00001; remission: odds ratio=2.00, 95% Cl=1.69-2.37, z=8.03, N=16, p<0.00001). Mean odds ratios did not differ among the atypical agents and were not affected by trial duration or method of establishing treatment resistance. Discontinuation rates for adverse events were higher for atypical agents than for placebo (odds ratio=3.91, 95% CI=2.68-5.72, z=7.05, N=15, p<0.00001). Conclusions: Atypical antipsychotics are effective augmentation agents in major depressive disorder but are associated with an increased risk of discontinuation due to adverse events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Previous studies of mixed aged and older adult samples with major depressive disorder (MDD) reported reduced depression response in anxious patients, but a systematic review and analysis has not been performed. Our aim was to determine if anxiety predicts antidepressant response in previously identified placebo-controlled trials of second generation antidepressants for late-life depression. Method From a previous systematic review that identified ten randomized, placebo-controlled trials of community dwelling patients aged 60 or older with major depression, anxious patients were identified by a score ≥7 on the anxiety/somatization factor of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS). Response was defined as 50% or greater improvement on the HDRS or the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale. A meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model to calculate Odds Ratios (OR). Results Data were available from eight trials having ten drug-placebo contrasts that included 2322 anxious and 1387 non-anxious patients. The odds ratio for response to drug compared to placebo in anxious patients was 1.57 (95% CI 1.15, 2.14; z = 2.86, n = 10, p < 0.001), in non-anxious patients was 1.44 (95% CI 1.15, 1.80, z = 3.21, n = 10, p < 0.001), and did not differ between groups. Pooled response rates to drug and placebo respectively were 49.4% vs 37.4% in anxious patients and 44.2 vs 35.5% in non-anxious patients. Conclusions In randomized, placebo-controlled trials, anxiety in late-life depression was not associated with decreased response to second generation antidepressants. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine effects of sertraline on suicidal thinking and behavior in patients with late-life major depression. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of an eight-week, placebo-controlled, double-blind randomized trial of a multi- center trial at 66 clinical sites. Outpatients ≥60 years of age with major depression and a Hamilton Depression Rating (HAMD) score ≥18 were included. Intervention was sertraline 50-100 mg/day or placebo for eight weeks. Measurements were 17-item HAMD administered at baseline and two-week intervals. HAMD Item 3 used to assess suicidal ideation (SI) and behavior. Reports of serious adverse events (SAEs), adverse events (AEs) leading to discontinuation, and spontaneously reported adverse events reviewed. Results: A total of 747 patients received at least one dose of medication, and 728 had at least one posttreatment assessment. Mean age (±5D) was 69.8 ± 67 years (range: 59-97 years) and 56% were female. There were no completed suicides or suicide at- tempts during the double-blind trial. One SAE, hospitalization, was associated with SI in a patient on sertraline. No other AEs were associated with SI or behavior. HAMD Item 3 ratings progressively declined during the trial with significantly lower values for sertraline than placebo (Z= 2.41, p <0.02). In 248 patients with HAMD Item 3 of zero at baseline, the percentage of patients whose Item 3 ratings increased during treatment did not differ in the two groups (22.4% versus 25.8% for sertraline and placebo, respectively.) Conclusion: Sertraline was associated with significantly lower HAMD Item 3 scores than placebo during treatment. There was no evidence of greater emergent suicidal thinking or behavior with sertraline than placebo. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: There have been few placebo-controlled trials of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for depressed elderly patients. This placebo-controlled study of sertraline was designed to confirm the results of non-placebo-controlled trials. Method: The subjects were outpatients age 60 years or older who had a DSM-IV diagnosis of major depressive disorder and a total score on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale of 18 or higher. The patients were randomly assigned to 8 weeks of double-blind treatment with placebo or a flexible daily dose of 50 or 100 mg of sertraline. The primary outcome variables were the Hamilton scale and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scales for severity and improvement. Results: A total of 371 patients assigned to sertraline and 376 assigned to placebo took at least one dose. At endpoint, the patients receiving sertraline evidenced significantly greater improvements than those receiving placebo on the Hamilton depression scale and CGI severity and improvement scales. The mean changes from baseline to endpoint in Hamilton score were -7.4 points (SD=6.3) for sertraline and -6.6 points (SD=6.4) for placebo. The rate of CGI-defined response at endpoint was significantly higher for sertraline (45%) than for placebo (35%), and the time to sustained response was significantly shorter for sertraline (median, 57 versus 61 days). There were few discontinuations due to treatment-related adverse events, 8% for sertraline and 2% for placebo. Conclusions: Sertraline was effective and well tolerated by older adults with major depression, although the drug-placebo difference was not large in this 8-week trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors examined the value of the dexamethasone suppression test (DST) for predicting response of patients with unipolar, non psychotic major depression to 1 week of hospitalization without antidepressant drugs and to a 4-week trial of desipramine at a fixed plasma level. The rates of response to hospitalization without drug treatment (defined as a score of 12 or less on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression) were not significantly different for the patients with a positive DST and those with a negative DST. This finding differs from those of prior studies of the DST and response to placebo. The responses of the DST-positive and DST-negative patients to desipramine also did not differ, a finding that replicates those in some prior reports. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author reflects on a study which demonstrates the successful use of adjunctive L-methylfolate as treatment for patients with major depressive disorder. He says that study involved two trials, the comparison of L-methylfolate and placebo in 148 patients with nonpsychotic unipolar depression and the use of 15 milligrams per day (mg/day) L-methylfolate or placebo in 75 patients. He is interested on the impact of L-methylfolate's long-term administration in depressed individuals.

This article presents an overview of the study regarding anxious depression. The study demonstrates that among 2,876 patients with major depression, those who were more anxious were more likely to experience adverse events and were less likely to respond and remit during citalopram treatment. The difference in response rates between anxious and nonanxious groups in the Sequenced Treatment Alternative to Relieve Depression sample is 41.7 percent and 52.8 percent, respectively, considering the magnitude of differences observed in recent placebo-controlled trials in depression and antidepressant comparison studies.

Background Randomised, placebo-controlled trials of treatments for depression typically collect outcomes data but traditionally only analyse data to demonstrate efficacy and safety. Additional post-hoc statistical techniques may reveal important insights about treatment variables useful when considering inter-individual differences amongst depressed patients. This paper aims to examine the Gradient Boosted Model (GBM), a statistical technique that uses regression tree analyses and can be applied to clinical trial data to identify and measure variables that may influence treatment outcomes. Methods GBM was applied to pooled data from 12 randomised clinical trials of 4987 participants experiencing an acute depressive episode who were treated with duloxetine, an SSRI or placebo to predict treatment remission. Additional analyses were conducted on the same dataset using the logistic regression model for comparison between these two methods. Results With GBM, there were noticeable differences between treatments when identifying which and to what extent variables were associated with remission. A single logistic regression only revealed a decreasing or increasing relationship between predictors and remission while GBM was able to reveal a complex relationship between predictors and remission. Limitations These analyses were conducted post-hoc utilising clinical trials databases. The criteria for constructing the analyses data were based on the characteristics of the clinical trials. Conclusions GBM can be used to identify and quantify patient variables that predict remission with specific treatments and has greater flexibility than the logistic regression model. GBM may provide new insights into inter-individual differences in treatment response that may be useful for selecting individualised treatments. Trial registration IMPACT clinical trial number 3327; IMPACT clinical trial number 4091; IMPACT clinical trial number 4689; IMPACT clinical trial number 4298; NCT00071695; NCT00062673; NCT00036335; NCT00067912; NCT00073411; NCT00489775; NCT00536471; NCT00666757 (note that trials with IMPACT numbers predate mandatory clinical trial registration requirements) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: There is a paucity of evidence for outcome predictors in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) not responding to initial antidepressant therapy (ADT). This post-hoc analysis evaluated whether MDD severity affects response to adjunctive aripiprazole. Methods: Data from 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of adjunctive aripiprazole in adults with MDD and inadequate response to 1 to 3 ADT trials were pooled and stratified based on Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score (mild, ≤24; moderate, 25–30; severe, ≥31). Treatment differences in change in MADRS total score and rates of response (≥50% MADRS improvement) and remission (response with MADRS total score ≤10) were analyzed at endpoint. Adverse events were assessed within each subgroup. Results: Aripiprazole produced greater improvement than placebo in the MADRS total score regardless of MDD severity at baseline (between-treatment difference [95% CI]: mild, −2.5 [−4.0 to −1.1]; moderate, −3.2 [−4.9 to −1.6]; severe, −4.5 [−6.8 to −2.2]). Compared with placebo, adjunctive aripiprazole increased the likelihood of response in all subgroups (risk ratio [95% CI]: mild, 1.50 [1.15, 1.95]; moderate, 1.51 [1.09, 2.11]; severe, 1.95 [1.23, 3.10]). Common treatment-emergent adverse events included akathisia and restlessness. Limitations: The original studies were not designed to assess the efficacy of adjunctive aripiprazole by baseline severity, and this post-hoc analysis was not powered to evaluate differences in severity subgroups. Conclusions: In patients who failed to respond to initial ADT, adjunctive aripiprazole was more effective than placebo in mild, moderate, and severe MDD strata. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT00095823, NCT00105196, and NCT00095758. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Objective: We investigated patient and disease characteristics predictive of relapse of MDD during a 52-week placebo controlled trial of selegiline transdermal system (STS) to identify patient characteristics relevant for STS treatment. Method: After 10 weeks of open-label stabilization with STS, 322 remitted patients with MDD were randomized to 52-weeks of double-blind treatment with STS (6mg/24h) or placebo (PLB). Relapse was defined as Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17) score of ≥14 and a CGI-S score of ≥3 with at least 2-point increase from the beginning of the double blind phase on 2 consecutive visits. Cox's proportional hazards regression was used to examine the effect of potential predictors (age, sex, age at onset of first MDD, early response pattern, number of previous antidepressant trials, severity of index episode, number of previous episodes, melancholic features, atypical features and anxious feature) on outcome. Exploratory analyses examined additional clinical variables (medical history, other psychiatric history, and individual items of HAM-D 28) on relapse. Results: For all predictor variables analyzed, treatment Hazard Ratio (HR=0.48~0.54) was significantly in favor of STS (i.e., lower relapse risk than PLB). Age of onset was significantly predictive of relapse. Type, duration, and severity of depressive episodes, previous antidepressant trials, or demographic variables did not predict relapse. In additional exploratory analysis, eating disorder history and suicidal ideation were significant predictors of relapse after controlling for the effect of treatment in individual predictor analysis. Conclusions: While age of onset, eating disorder history and suicidal ideation were significant predictors, the majority of clinical and demographic variables were not predictive of relapse. Given the post-hoc nature of analysis, the findings need confirmation from a prospective study. It appears that selegiline transdermal system was broadly effective in preventing relapse across different subtypes and symptoms clusters of MDD. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]