Search

Osteoarthritis (OA) and major depression (MD) are two debilitating disorders that frequently co-occur and affect millions of the elderly each year. Despite the greater symptom severity, poorer clinical outcomes, and increased mortality of the comorbid conditions, we have a limited understanding of their etiologic relationships. In this study, we conducted the first cross-disorder investigations of OA and MD, using genome-wide association data representing over 247K cases and 475K controls. Along with significant positive genome-wide genetic correlations (r g = 0.299 ± 0.026, p = 9.10 × 10–31), Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis identified a bidirectional causal effect between OA and MD (βOA→MD = 0.09, SE = 0.02, z -score p -value < 1.02 × 10–5; βMD→OA = 0.19, SE = 0.026, p < 2.67 × 10–13), indicating genetic variants affecting OA risk are, in part, shared with those influencing MD risk. Cross-disorder meta-analysis of OA and MD identified 56 genomic risk loci (P meta ≤ 5 × 10–8), which show heightened expression of the associated genes in the brain and pituitary. Gene-set enrichment analysis highlighted " mechanosensory behavior " genes (GO:0007638; P gene_set = 2.45 × 10–8) as potential biological mechanisms that simultaneously increase susceptibility to these mental and physical health conditions. Taken together, these findings show that OA and MD share common genetic risk mechanisms, one of which centers on the neural response to the sensation of mechanical stimulus. Further investigation is warranted to elaborate the etiologic mechanisms of the pleiotropic risk genes, as well as to develop early intervention and integrative clinical care of these serious conditions that disproportionally affect the aging population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Major depressive disorder is a common, recurrent, disabling and costly disorder that is often severe and/or chronic, and for which non-remission on guideline concordant first-line antidepressant treatment is the norm. A sizeable percentage of patients diagnosed with MDD do not achieve full remission after receiving antidepressant treatment. How to understand or approach these 'refractory', 'TRD' or 'difficult to treat' patients need to be revisited. Treatment resistant depression (TRD) has been described elsewhere as failure to respond to adequate treatment by two different antidepressants. This definition is problematic as it suggests that TRD is a subtype of major depressive disorder (MDD), inferring a boundary between TRD and depression that is not treatment resistant. However, there is scant evidence to suggest that a discrete TRD entity exists as a distinct subtype of MDD, which itself is not a discrete or homogeneous entity. Similarly, the boundary between TRD and other forms of depression is predicated at least in part on regulatory and research requirements rather than biological evidence or clinical utility. This paper aims to investigate the notion of treatment failure in order to understand (i) what is TRD in the context of a broader formulation based on the understanding of depression, (ii) what factors make an individual patient difficult to treat, and (iii) what is the appropriate and individualised treatment strategy, predicated on an individual with refractory forms of depression? Expert contributors to this paper were sought internationally by contacting representatives of key professional societies in the treatment of MDD – World Federation of Societies for Biological Psychiatry, Australasian Society for Bipolar and Depressive Disorders, International Society for Affective Disorders, Collegium Internationale Neuro-Psychopharmacologium and the Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments. The manuscript was prepared through iterative editing. The concept of TRD as a discrete subtype of MDD, defined by failure to respond to pharmacotherapy, is not supported by evidence. Between 15 and 30% of depressive episodes fail to respond to adequate trials of 2 antidepressants, and 68% of individuals do not achieve remission from depression after a first-line course of antidepressant treatment. Failure to respond to antidepressant treatment, somatic therapies or psychotherapies may often reflect other factors including; biological resistance, diagnostic error, limitations of current therapies, psychosocial variables, a past history of exposure to childhood maltreatment or abuse, job satisfaction, personality disorders, co-morbid mental and physical disorders, substance use or non-adherence to treatment. Only a subset of patients not responding to antidepressant treatment can be explained through pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamics mechanisms. We propose that non remitting MDD should be personalised, and propose a strategy of 'deconstructing depression'. By this approach, the clinician considers which factors contribute to making this individual both depressed and 'resistant' to previous therapeutic approaches. Clinical formulation is required to understand the nature of the depression. Many predictors of response are not biological, and reflect a confluence of biological, psychological, and sociocultural factors, which may influence the illness in a particular individual. After deconstructing depression at a personalised level, a personalised treatment plan can be constructed. The treatment plan needs to address the factors that have contributed to the individual's hard to treat depression. In addition, an individual with a history of illness may have a lot of accumulated life issues due to consequences of their illness, and these should be addressed in a recovery plan. A 'deconstructing depression' qualitative rubric does not easily provide clear inclusion and exclusion criteria for researchers wanting to investigate TRD. MDD is a polymorphic disorder and many individuals who fail to respond to standard pharmacotherapy and are considered hard to treat. These patients are best served by personalised approaches that deconstruct the factors that have contributed to the patient's depression and implementing a treatment plan that adequately addresses these factors. The existence of TRD as a discrete and distinct subtype of MDD, defined by two treatment failures, is not supported by evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: When clinicians evaluate potential medications for their patients, they must weigh the probability of a treatment's benefits against the possible risks. To this end, the present analyses evaluate the novel nonstimulant viloxazine extended‐release (viloxazine ER) using measures of effect size to describe the potential benefits of its treatment in children and adolescents with attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) as well as the risk of discontinuation because of intolerable adverse events. Methods: These post hoc analyses use pooled data from four pivotal Phase 3 trials in paediatric patients treated with viloxazine ER. The Likelihood to be Helped or Harmed (LHH) effect size measure was calculated to describe the probability of patients benefiting from treatment vs discontinuing. The Number Needed to Treat (NNT) was calculated from frequently used thresholds of response. The Number Needed to Harm (NNH) was calculated using discontinuations because of adverse events. Results: LHH values for viloxazine ER ranged from 5 to 13, suggesting that subjects were 5‐13 times more likely to benefit from, rather than discontinue, viloxazine ER treatment. Specifically, NNT values for viloxazine ER treatment ranged from 6 to 7. NNH values for viloxazine ER treatment ranged from 31 to 74. By convention, single‐digit NNTs (<10) suggest the intervention is potentially useful, while NNH values ≥10 for adverse events suggest it is potentially safe or tolerable. Conclusions: These results indicate that patients with ADHD are likely to benefit from treatment with viloxazine ER, and are unlikely to discontinue, as viloxazine ER treatment was associated with favourable LHH, NNT, and NNH values. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03247530, NCT03247543, NCT03247517, NCT03247556. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This report tests the association of self-reported symptoms of irritability with overt behavior of anger attacks (uncharacteristic sudden bouts of anger that are disproportionate to situation and associated with autonomic activation). Methods: Participants of the Establishing Moderators and Biosignatures of Antidepressant Response in Clinical Care study who completed Massachusetts General Hospital Anger Attacks questionnaire were included (n = 293). At each visit, the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and the 16-item Concise Associated Symptom Tracking scale were used to measure depression, anxiety, and irritability. In those with anger attacks present v. those without anger attacks, separate t tests and mixed model analyses compared afore-mentioned symptoms at baseline and changes with treatment respectively. As anger attacks may occur without aggressive behaviors, analyses were repeated based only on the presence of aggressive behaviors. Results: At baseline, those with anger attacks (n = 109) v. those without anger attacks (n = 184) had similar levels of depression but higher levels of irritability [effect size (d) = 0.80] and anxiety (d = 0.32). With acute-phase treatment, participants with anger attacks experienced a greater reduction in irritability (p < 0.001) but not in depression (p = 0.813) or anxiety (p = 0.771) as compared to those without anger attacks. Yet, irritability levels at week-8 were higher in those with anger attacks (d = 0.32) than those without anger attacks. Similar results were found in participants with aggressive behaviors. Conclusions: The presence of anger attacks in outpatients with major depressive disorder may identify a sub-group of patients with persistently elevated irritability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]