Search

Objective: Side effects to antidepressant medication can affect the efficacy of treatment, but few predictors foretell who experiences side effects and which side effects they experience. This secondary data analysis examined whether depressed patients with comorbid panic disorder were more likely to experience side effects than those without panic disorder. The study also examined whether greater burden of side effects predicted a poorer treatment course for patients with panic disorder than those without panic disorder. To examine the specificity of these effects, analyses also examined 2 other anxiety disorders-social phobia and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD)., Methods: Between 2002 and 2006, a large sample (N = 808) of chronically depressed individuals (assessed using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-TR Axis I Disorders [SCID-IV]) received antidepressants according to a predetermined algorithm for 12 weeks. Every 2 weeks, depressive symptoms (per the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale) and side effects (specific side effects as well as several indicators of side effect burden) were assessed., Results: Lifetime diagnosis of panic disorder (assessed using the SCID-IV) at baseline was associated with higher likelihood of gastrointestinal (OR = 1.6 [95% CI, 1.0-2.6]), cardiac (OR = 1.8 [95% CI, 1.1-3.1]), neurologic (OR = 2.6 [95% CI, 1.6-4.2]), and genitourinary side effects (OR = 3.0 [95% CI, 1.7-5.3]) during treatment. Increases in side effect frequency, intensity, and impairment over time were more strongly associated with increases in depressive symptoms for patients with panic disorder compared to those without panic disorder. Neither social phobia nor GAD was associated with these effects., Conclusions: Potentially due to heighte​ned interoceptive awareness of changes in their body, chronically depressed individuals with panic disorder may be at greater risk than those without panic disorder for antidepressant side effects and to experience a worsening of depressive symptoms as a result of these side effects over time., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00057551​., (© Copyright 2017 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)

Objective: The authors sought to determine the risk of treatment-emergent mania associated with methylphenidate, used in monotherapy or with a concomitant mood-stabilizing medication, in patients with bipolar disorder., Method: Using linked Swedish national registries, the authors identified 2,307 adults with bipolar disorder who initiated therapy with methylphenidate between 2006 and 2014. The cohort was divided into two groups: those with and those without concomitant mood-stabilizing treatment. To adjust for individual-specific confounders, including disorder severity, genetic makeup, and early environmental factors, Cox regression analyses were used, conditioning on individual to compare the rate of mania (defined as hospitalization for mania or a new dispensation of stabilizing medication) 0-3 months and 3-6 months after medication start following nontreated periods., Results: Patients on methylphenidate monotherapy displayed an increased rate of manic episodes within 3 months of medication initiation (hazard ratio=6.7, 95% CI=2.0-22.4), with similar results for the subsequent 3 months. By contrast, for patients taking mood stabilizers, the risk of mania was lower after starting methylphenidate (hazard ratio=0.6, 95% CI=0.4-0.9). Comparable results were observed when only hospitalizations for mania were counted., Conclusions: No evidence was found for a positive association between methylphenidate and treatment-emergent mania among patients with bipolar disorder who were concomitantly receiving a mood-stabilizing medication. This is clinically important given that up to 20% of people with bipolar disorder suffer from comorbid ADHD. Given the markedly increased hazard ratio of mania following methylphenidate initiation in bipolar patients not taking mood stabilizers, careful assessment to rule out bipolar disorder is indicated before initiating monotherapy with psychostimulants.

Study Objectives: To determine if patients with childhood onsets (CO) of both major depression and insomnia disorder show blunted depression and insomnia treatment responses to concurrent interventions for both disorders compared to those with adult onsets (AO) of both conditions., Methods: This study was a secondary analysis of data obtained from a multisite randomized clinical trial designed to test the efficacy of combining a psychological/behavior insomnia therapy with antidepressant medication to enhance depression treatment outcomes in patients with comorbid major depression and insomnia. This study included 27 adults with CO of depression and insomnia and 77 adults with AO of both conditions. They underwent a 16-week treatment including: (1) a standardized two-step pharmacotherapy for depression algorithm, consisting of escitalopram, sertraline, and desvenlafaxine in a prescribed sequence; and (2) either cognitive behavioral insomnia therapy (CBT-I) or a quasi-desensitization control (CTRL) therapy. Main outcome measures were the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD-17) and the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) completed pre-treatment and every 2 weeks thereafter., Results: The AO and CO groups did not differ significantly in regard to their pre-treatment HRSD-17 and ISI scores. Mixed model analyses that adjusted for the number of insomnia treatment sessions attended showed that the AO group achieved significantly lower, subclinical scores on the HRSD-17 and ISI than did the CO group by the time of study exit. Moreover, a significant group by treatment arm interaction suggested that HRSD-17 scores at study exit remained significantly higher in the CO group receiving the CTRL therapy than was the case for the participants in the CO group receiving CBT-I. Greater proportions of the AO group achieved a priori criteria for remission of insomnia (49.3% vs. 29.2%, p = 0.04) and depression (45.5% vs. 29.6%, p = 0.07) than did those in the CO group., Conclusions: Patients with comorbid depression and insomnia who experienced the first onset of both disorders in childhood are less responsive to the treatments offered herein than are those with adult onsets of these comorbid disorders. Further research is needed to identify therapies that enhance the depression and insomnia treatment responses of those with childhood onsets of these two conditions., (© 2017 American Academy of Sleep Medicine)

Background: There is well-known heterogeneity in affective mechanisms in depression that may extend to positive affect. We used data-driven parsing of neural connectivity to reveal subgroups present across depressed and healthy individuals during positive processing, informing targets for mechanistic intervention., Methods: Ninety-two individuals (68 depressed patients, 24 never-depressed control subjects) completed a sustained positive mood induction during functional magnetic resonance imaging. Directed functional connectivity paths within a depression-relevant network were characterized using Group Iterative Multiple Model Estimation (GIMME), a method shown to accurately recover the direction and presence of connectivity paths in individual participants. During model selection, individuals were clustered using community detection on neural connectivity estimates. Subgroups were externally tested across multiple levels of analysis., Results: Two connectivity-based subgroups emerged: subgroup A, characterized by weaker connectivity overall, and subgroup B, exhibiting hyperconnectivity (relative to subgroup A), particularly among ventral affective regions. Subgroup predicted diagnostic status (subgroup B contained 81% of patients; 50% of control subjects; χ 2 = 8.6, p = .003) and default mode network connectivity during a separate resting-state task. Among patients, subgroup B members had higher self-reported symptoms, lower sustained positive mood during the induction, and higher negative bias on a reaction-time task. Symptom-based depression subgroups did not predict these external variables., Conclusions: Neural connectivity-based categorization travels with diagnostic category and is clinically predictive, but not clinically deterministic. Both patients and control subjects showed heterogeneous, and overlapping, profiles. The larger and more severely affected patient subgroup was characterized by ventrally driven hyperconnectivity during positive processing. Data-driven parsing suggests heterogeneous substrates of depression and possible resilience in control subjects in spite of biological overlap., (Copyright © 2016 Society of Biological Psychiatry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Decreased enjoyment from pleasant events is a key component of anhedonia, but evidence has been inconsistent demonstrating its association across levels of depressive symptom severity. We test the hypothesis that depressed participants who engage in greater (rather than lower) concurrent use of experiential avoidance strategies will demonstrate impaired positive (PA) and negative (NA) emotional reactivity when pleasant events take place., Methods: 50 Veterans with a range of depression severity completed a 7-day phone-based ecological momentary assessment protocol that assessed the pleasantness of their recent activity, level of PA and NA, and concurrent use of experiential avoidance strategies., Results: As events were rated as more pleasant, depressed Veterans using less experiential avoidance were distinguished from depressed Veterans using greater experiential avoidance, such that greater experiential avoidance interfered with PA and NA reactivity., Limitations: Small sample of primarily older men, all were Veterans, and assessments relied on self-reports of event pleasantness and depression; we did not include a control group., Conclusions: It is critical to understand how depressed individuals experience potentially rewarding aspects of their environments. Our study provides preliminary data that depressed individuals may benefit from positive events in daily life when experiential avoidance is low and may demonstrate impaired reactivity when avoidance is high. This study may help clinicians to identify the contexts that support hedonic responses to potentially rewarding aspects of their depressed patients' environments., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate feasibility, efficacy, and tolerability of Sudarshan Kriya yoga (SKY) as an adjunctive intervention in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) with inadequate response to antidepressant treatment., Methods: Patients with MDD (defined by DSM-IV-TR) who were depressed despite ≥ 8 weeks of antidepressant treatment were randomized to SKY or a waitlist control (delayed yoga) arm for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was change in 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) total score from baseline to 2 months. The key secondary efficacy end points were change in Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) total scores. Analyses of the intent-to-treat (ITT) and completer sample were performed. The study was conducted at the University of Pennsylvania between October 2014 and December 2015., Results: In the ITT sample (n = 25), the SKY arm (n = 13) showed a greater improvement in HDRS-17 total score compared to waitlist control (n = 12) (-9.77 vs 0.50, P = .0032). SKY also showed greater reduction in BDI total score versus waitlist control (-17.23 vs -1.75, P = .0101). Mean changes in BAI total score from baseline were significantly greater for SKY than waitlist (ITT mean difference: -5.19; 95% CI, -0.93 to -9.34; P = .0097; completer mean difference: -6.23; 95% CI, -1.39 to -11.07; P = .0005). No adverse events were reported., Conclusions: Results of this randomized, waitlist-controlled pilot study suggest the feasibility and promise of an adjunctive SKY-based intervention for patients with MDD who have not responded to antidepressants., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02616549., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest: Dr. Thase has received grants from Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Alkermes, Forest, National Institute of Mental Health, Otsuka, PharmaNeuroboost and Roche; has acted as an advisor or consultant for Alkermes, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cerecor, Eli Lilly, Forest, Gerson Lehman Group, GlaxoSmithKline, Guidepoint Global, Lundbeck, MedAvante, Merck, Neuronetics, Novartis, Ortho-McNeil, Otsuka, Pamlab, Pfizer, Shire, Sunovion and Takeda. Drs. Sharma, Barrett, Cucchiara and Gooneratne have no potential conflicts to disclose., (© Copyright 2016 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)

Background: Acute-phase cognitive therapy (CT) is an efficacious treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD), but responders experience varying post-acute outcomes (e.g., relapse vs. recovery). Responders' symptom-change trajectories during response to acute-phase CT may predict longer term outcomes., Method: We studied adult outpatients (N = 220) with recurrent MDD who responded to CT but had residual symptoms. Responders with linear (steady improvement), log-linear (quicker improvement earlier and slower later), one-step (a single, relatively large, stable improvement between adjacent assessments), or undefined (not linear, log-linear, or one-step) symptom trajectories were assessed every 4 months for 32 additional months., Results: Defined (linear, log-linear, one-step) versus undefined acute-phase trajectories predicted lower depressive symptoms (d = 0.36), lower weekly probability of being in a major depressive episode (OR = 0.46), higher weekly probabilities of remission (OR = 1.93) and recovery (OR = 2.35), less hopelessness (d = 0.41), fewer dysfunctional attitudes (d = 0.31), and better social adjustment (d = 0.32) for 32 months after acute-phase CT. Differences among defined trajectory groups were nonsignificant., Conclusions: Responding to acute-phase CT with a defined trajectory (orderly pattern) of symptom reduction predicts better longer term outcomes, but which defined trajectory (linear, log-linear, or one-step) appears unimportant. Frequent measurement of depressive symptoms to identify un/defined CT response trajectories may clarify need for continued clinical monitoring and treatment., Competing Interests: Statement Dr. Vittengl is a paid reviewer for UpToDate. Dr. Clark has no financial interest or conflict of interest in the research. During the past 3 years Dr. Thase has consulted with and/or served on advisory boards for Advir, Alkermes, Allergan, AstraZeneca, Avenir, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Cerecor, Cerenex, Eli Lilly and Company, Forest Laboratories, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Johnson & Johnson, Lundbeck, MedAvante, Merck, Moksha8, Naurex, Neuronetics, Novartis, Otsuka, Nestlé (formerly Pamlab), Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Shire, Sunovion, Takeda, and Teva. During this time, he has received grant support from Alkermes, Assurerx, AstraZeneca, Avenir, Eli Lilly and Company, Forest Laboratories, Janssen/Johnson & Johnson, Otsuka, and Roche, as well as funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the NIMH. He has equity holdings for MedAvante, Inc. and has received royalties from American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc. (APPI), Guilford Publications, Herald House, and W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. Two books currently promoted by the APPI specifically pertain to cognitive therapy. Dr. Thase also discloses that his spouse is an employee of Peloton Advantage, which does business with several pharmaceutical companies that market medications used to treat depression. Dr. Jarrett’s medical center collects the payments from the cognitive therapy she provides to patients. Dr. Jarrett is a paid consultant to the NIH, NIMH, and UpToDate., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Comparative effectiveness research uses multiple tools, but lacks outcome measures to assess large electronic medical records and claims data. Aggregate changes in medications in response to clinical need may serve as a surrogate outcome measure. We developed the Medication Recommendation Tracking Form (MRTF) to record the frequency, types, and reasons for medication adjustments in order to calculate Necessary Clinical Adjustments (NCAs), medication adjustments to reduce symptoms, maximize treatment response, or address problematic side effects., Methods: The MRTF was completed at every visit for 482 adult patients in Bipolar CHOICE, a 6-month randomized comparative effectiveness trial., Results: Responders had significantly fewer NCAs compared to non-responders. NCAs predicted subsequent response status such that every additional NCA during the previous visit decreased a patient's odds of response by approximately 30%. Patients with more severe symptoms had a greater number of NCAs at the subsequent visit. Patients with a comorbid anxiety disorder demonstrated a significantly higher rate of NCAs per month than those without a comorbid anxiety disorder. Patients with greater frequency, intensity, and interference of side effects had higher rates of NCAs. Participants with fewer NCAs reported a higher quality of life and decreased functional impairment., Limitations: The MRTF has not been examined in community clinic settings and did not predict response more efficiently than the Clinical Global Impression-Bipolar Version (CGI-BP)., Conclusions: The MRTF is a feasible proxy of clinical outcome, with implications for clinical training and decision-making. Analyses of big data could use changes in medications as a surrogate outcome measure., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Clinicians should weigh potential adverse effects of antidepressant medications when treating patients with medical comorbidities. Consider an example of the choices that sometimes must be made through the case of Tony, a 64-year-old man whose current diagnosis of hypertension and increased risk of diabetes influence his treatment for depression., (© Copyright 2016 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)

The objective of this post-hoc analysis was to investigate the relationship between motivation/energy and functional impairment in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). Data were taken from a phase 3 trial of levomilnacipran extended-release (ER) in adults with MDD (NCT01034462; N=429) that used the 18-item Motivation and Energy Inventory (MEI) to assess motivation/energy. Two subgroups with lower and higher motivation/energy were defined using baseline MEI total scores (≤28 and >28, respectively). Change from baseline in the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) total score was analyzed in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population and both subgroups. Path analyses were carried out in the ITT population and a lower MEI subgroup to assess the direct and indirect effects of levomilnacipran ER on SDS total score change. In the ITT population and the lower MEI subgroup, significant differences were found between levomilnacipran ER and placebo for changes in the SDS total score (-2.6 and -3.9, both P<0.01), but not in the higher MEI subgroup. The indirect effect of levomilnacipran ER on SDS total score improvement, as mediated by MEI total score change, was 79.9% in the lower MEI subgroup and 67.2% in the ITT population. Levomilnacipran ER was previously shown to improve motivation/energy in adults with MDD. The current analysis indicates that improvements in functional impairment were considerably mediated by improvements in motivation/energy, particularly in patients with lower motivation/energy at baseline.

Objectives: The Treatment of Insomnia and Depression (TRIAD) study evaluated the efficacy of combining depression pharmacotherapy (using MED, an ecologically valid and generalizable antidepressant medication algorithm) with cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) among individuals with comorbid insomnia and major depressive disorder (MDD) to determine if change in insomnia severity mediates antidepressant outcome., Methods: This 16-week, 3-site, randomized controlled trial (RCT) randomly assigned 150 participants (recruited between March 2009 and August 2013), who met DSM-IV-TR criteria for insomnia and MDD and were not receiving treatment for either, to receive depression pharmacotherapy plus 7 sessions of either CBT-I or a credible control therapy for insomnia (CTRL). Depression pharmacotherapy followed a standardized 2-step algorithm, which included escitalopram, sertraline, and desvenlafaxine in a prescribed sequence. Primary measures were the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and the depression module of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders, Research Version, Nonpatient Edition, administered by raters masked to treatment assignment, and the self-administered Insomnia Severity Index (ISI)., Results: CBT-I was superior to CTRL in reducing insomnia severity (P = .028). The overall difference in depression remission between the treatments was not statistically significant (44% in CBT-I and 36% in CTRL; number needed to treat = 15). However, planned secondary analysis revealed that improvements in insomnia at week 6 mediated eventual remission from depression, with early change in ISI predicting depression remission in the CBT-I (P = .0002) but not in the CTRL arm (P = .26)., Conclusions: CBT-I is an efficacious treatment for insomnia comorbid with MDD among patients treated with antidepressant medications. Improvement in insomnia may be related to the change in depression. Future studies should identify which patients are most likely to benefit from the addition of an insomnia-focused therapy to standard antidepressant treatments., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00767624., (© Copyright 2016 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)

Suicide is the second leading cause of death, worldwide, for those between the ages of 24 and 44 y old. In 2013, more than 41,000 suicides occurred in the United States. These statistics underscore the need to 1) understand why people die by suicide and 2) identify risk factors that are potentially modifiable. While it has been posited that sleep disturbance may represent one such factor, systematic research in this arena did not begin until the 2000s. Since that time, sleep disturbance has been reliably identified as a risk factor for suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and suicide. While insomnia, nightmares, and other sleep disorders have each been found to contribute to the risk for suicidal ideation and behavior, it is also possible that these factors share some common variance. One possibility is that sleep disturbance results in being awake at night, and being awake at night also confers risk. The hypothesis proffered here is that being awake when one is not biologically prepared to be so results in "hypofrontality" and diminished executive function, and that this represents a common pathway to suicidal ideation and behavior. Such a proposition is highly testable under a variety of possible protocols. The current review summarizes the extant literature on suicide rates by time-of-day, and discusses circadian, psychosocial, and neurocognitive explanations of risk. Such a focus promises to enhance our understanding of how sleep disturbance may confer risk, allows for the identification of future lines of research, and further justifies the need for interventions that promote good sleep continuity among at-risk individuals., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Over the past decades, several adjunctive therapies have been introduced for treatment-resistant depression (TRD), and these strategies have ebbed and flowed in popularity. Currently, adjunctive therapy with the second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) is most commonly used by psychiatrists. Four SGAs are FDA approved for indications related to TRD (aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, olanzapine, and quetiapine extended release); some evidence also supports use of risperidone and ziprasidone as adjunctive therapies. This article briefly reviews the role of adjunctive therapy with SGAs in contemporary algorithms for TRD, considering both the evidence of benefit and the adverse effects., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Neuroimaging studies of mood disorders demonstrate abnormalities in brain regions implicated in reward processing. However, there is a paucity of research investigating how social rewards affect reward circuit activity in these disorders. Here, we evaluated the relationship of both diagnostic category and dimensional depression severity to reward system function in bipolar and unipolar depression. In total, 86 adults were included, including 24 patients with bipolar depression, 24 patients with unipolar depression, and 38 healthy comparison subjects. Participants completed a social reward task during 3T BOLD fMRI. On average, diagnostic groups did not differ in activation to social reward. However, greater depression severity significantly correlated with reduced bilateral ventral striatum activation to social reward in the bipolar depressed group, but not the unipolar depressed group. In addition, decreased left orbitofrontal cortical activation correlated with more severe symptoms in bipolar depression, but not unipolar depression. These differential dimensional effects resulted in a significant voxelwise group by depression severity interaction. Taken together, these results provide initial evidence that deficits in social reward processing are differentially related to depression severity in the two disorders., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest. Dr. Thase reports no conflicts directly pertaining to this research. Over the past 36 months, he reports the following relationships: Alkermes, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cerecor, Eli Lilly, Dey Pharma, Forest Laboratories, Gerson Lehman Group, Guidepoint Global, H. Lundbeck A/S, MedAvante, Merck, Neuronetics, Otsuka, Ortho-McNeil, Pamlab, Pfizer, PGx, Shire, Sunovion, Super-nus, Takeda, and Transcept Pharmaceuticals., (Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.)

Background: Social-interpersonal dysfunction increases disability in major depressive disorder (MDD). Here we clarified the durability of improvements in social-interpersonal functioning made during acute-phase cognitive therapy (CT), whether continuation CT (C-CT) or fluoxetine (FLX) further improved functioning, and relations of functioning with depressive symptoms and relapse/recurrence., Method: Adult outpatients (N=241) with recurrent MDD who responded to acute-phase CT with higher risk of relapse (due to unstable or partial remission) were randomized to 8 months of C-CT, FLX, or pill placebo plus clinical management (PBO) and followed 24 additional months. We analyzed repeated measures of patients' social adjustment, interpersonal problems, dyadic adjustment, depressive symptoms, and major depressive relapse/recurrence., Results: Large improvements in social-interpersonal functioning occurring during acute-phase CT (median d=1.4) were maintained, with many patients (median=66%) scoring in normal ranges for 32 months. Social-interpersonal functioning did not differ significantly among C-CT, FLX, and PBO arms. Beyond concurrently measured residual symptoms, deterioration in social-interpersonal functioning preceded and predicted upticks in depressive symptoms and major depressive relapse/recurrence., Limitations: Results may not generalize to other patient populations, treatment protocols, or measures of social-interpersonal functioning. Mechanisms of risk connecting poorer social-interpersonal functioning with depression were not studied., Conclusions: Average improvements in social-interpersonal functioning among higher-risk responders to acute phase CT are durable for 32 months. After acute-phase CT, C-CT or FLX may not further improve social-interpersonal functioning. Among acute-phase CT responders, deteriorating social-interpersonal functioning provides a clear, measurable signal of risk for impending major depressive relapse/recurrence and opportunity for preemptive intervention., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Suicide is a major public health problem and the 10th leading cause of death in the United States. The identification of modifiable risk factors is essential for reducing the prevalence of suicide. Recently, it has been shown that insomnia and nightmares significantly increase the risk for suicidal ideation, attempted suicide, and death by suicide. While both forms of sleep disturbance may independently confer risk, and potentially be modifiable risk factors, it is also possible that simply being awake at night represents a specific vulnerability for suicide. The present analysis evaluates the frequency of completed suicide per hour while taking into account the percentage of individuals awake at each hour., Methods: Archival analyses were conducted estimating the time of fatal injury using the National Violent Death Reporting System for 2003-2010 and the proportion of the American population awake per hour across the 24-hour day using the American Time Use Survey., Results: The mean ± SD incident rate from 06:00-23:59 was 2.2% ± 0.7%, while the mean ± SD incident rate from 00:00-05:59 was 10.3% ± 4.9%. The maximum incident rate was from 02:00-02:59 (16.3%). Hour-by-hour observed values differed from those that would be expected by chance (P < .001), and when 6-hour blocks were examined, the observed frequency at night was 3.6 times higher than would be expected by chance (P < .001)., Conclusions: Being awake at night confers greater risk for suicide than being awake at other times of the day, suggesting that disturbances of sleep or circadian neurobiology may potentiate suicide risk., (© Copyright 2016 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)

The efficacy and safety of vortioxetine, an antidepressant approved for the treatment of adults with major depressive disorder (MDD), was studied in 11 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of 6/8 weeks׳ treatment duration. An aggregated study-level meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the magnitude and dose-relationship of the clinical effect of approved doses of vortioxetine (5-20mg/day). The primary outcome measure was change from baseline to endpoint in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. Differences from placebo were analyzed using mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) analysis, with a sensitivity analysis also conducted using last observation carried forward. Secondary outcomes included MADRS single-item scores, response rate (≥50% reduction in baseline MADRS), remission rate (MADRS ≤10), and Clinical Global Impressions scores. Across the 11 studies, 1824 patients were treated with placebo and 3304 with vortioxetine (5mg/day: n=1001; 10mg/day: n=1042; 15mg/day: n=449; 20mg/day: n=812). The MMRM meta-analysis demonstrated that vortioxetine 5, 10, and 20mg/day were associated with significant reductions in MADRS total score (Δ-2.27, Δ-3.57, and Δ-4.57, respectively; p<0.01) versus placebo. The effects of 15mg/day (Δ-2.60; p=0.105) were not significantly different from placebo. Vortioxetine 10 and 20mg/day were associated with significant reductions in 9 of 10 MADRS single-item scores. Vortioxetine treatment was also associated with significantly higher rates of response and remission and with significant improvements in other depression-related scores versus placebo. This meta-analysis of vortioxetine (5-20mg/day) in adults with MDD supports the efficacy demonstrated in the individual studies, with treatment effect increasing with dose., (Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Major depressive disorder has been associated with dysregulation of the endogenous opioid system. The authors sought to determine whether opioid modulation achieved through administration of ALKS 5461, a combination of a μ- and κ-opioid partial agonist, buprenorphine, and a μ-opioid antagonist, samidorphan, would exhibit antidepressant activity in patients with major depression., Method: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-stage sequential parallel comparison design study was conducted in adults with major depression who had an inadequate response to one or two courses of antidepressant treatment. Participants were randomly assigned to receive adjunctive treatment with 2 mg/2 mg of buprenorphine/samidorphan (the 2/2 dosage group), 8 mg/8 mg of buprenorphine/samidorphan (the 8/8 dosage group), or placebo. Antidepressant effect was measured based on change from baseline to the end of 4 weeks of treatment on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), and the Clinical Global Impressions severity scale (CGI-S)., Results: Compared with the placebo group, there were significantly greater improvements in the 2/2 dosage group across the three depression outcome measures (HAM-D: -2.8, 95% CI=-5.1, -0.6; MADRS: -4.9, 95% CI=-8.2, -1.6; CGI-S: -0.5, 95% CI=-0.9, -0.1). There was also evidence of improvement in the 8/8 dosage group, although it did not achieve statistical significance. Overall, the buprenorphine/samidorphan combinations were well tolerated, and there was no evidence of opioid withdrawal on treatment discontinuation., Conclusions: The buprenorphine/samidorphan combination is a novel and promising candidate for treatment of major depressive disorder in patients who have an inadequate response to standard antidepressants.

The number needed to treat (NNT) statistic was developed to facilitate the practice of evidence-based medicine. Placebo was assumed to be therapeutically inert when the NNT was originally conceived, but more recent data for conditions such as major depressive disorder (MDD) suggest that the placebo control condition can have considerable therapeutic effects. Complications arise because the NNT calculated from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reflects a comparison between medication plus clinical management and placebo plus clinical management, whereas, in the clinical setting, physicians choose between prescribing open medication, observing a patient over time with a supportive approach, and doing nothing. Thus, NNTs derived from clinical trials are not directly relevant to clinical decision-making, because they are based on control conditions that do not exist in standard practice. Additional difficulties may arise when using NNTs to compare alternative treatments for MDD, such as medication and psychotherapy, since these comparisons require the control conditions upon which the respective NNTs are based to be similar.Whereas pill placebo conditions include intensive clinical management and elicit expectations of improvement, attention control conditions for psychotherapy research are less well developed. Often the effects of psychotherapy are gauged against a wait-list control condition, which has substantially fewer therapeutic components than a pill placebo control condition. To improve the clinical utility of NNTs for the treatment of MDD, we advocate effectiveness studies that include treatment conditions resembling actual clinical practice, rather than using placebo-controlled RCTs for this purpose. Until such studies are performed, the effect of bias in comparing NNTs across treatments can be controlled by ensuring that the RCT control conditions upon which the NNTs are based are comparable., (© The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2016.)

Depressive episodes that do not respond to at least several adequate courses of standard antidepressants account for a substantial proportion of the socioeconomic and medical burden associated with this common illness. As such, treatment-resistant depression represents both an important public health problem and a great unmet need in psychiatric therapeutics. Among the several "add-on" strategies with established efficacy for treatment-resistant depression, the second-generation antipsychotics have become the most commonly used in psychiatric settings. This article briefly examines the benefits and limitations of adjunctive therapy with second-generation antipsychotics to determine whether these medications are now the standard of comparison for new therapies for treatment-resistant depression., (Copyright © by the American Psychiatric Association.)

Background: Content valid, patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures of major depressive disorder (MDD) symptoms are needed to assess MDD treatment benefit. While a range of questionnaires are currently available to evaluate aspects of depression from the patient's perspective, their comprehensiveness and qualitative development histories are unclear., Objective: The objective of this study was to describe the process and results of the preliminary qualitative development of a new symptom-based PRO measure intended to assess treatment benefit in MDD clinical trials., Methods: Qualitative interviews were conducted with adult MDD patients in the USA who recently experienced a major depressive episode. Experienced interviewers conducted concept elicitation (CE) and cognitive interviews using semi-structured interview guides. The CE interview guide was used to elicit spontaneous reports of symptom experiences along with probing to further explore and confirm concepts. The cognitive interview guide was developed to evaluate concept relevance, understandability, and structure of the draft items, and to facilitate further instrument refinement., Results: Forty patients participated in the CE interviews. A total of 3022 symptom codes, representing 84 different concepts were derived from the transcripts. Data from the CE interviews were considered alongside existing literature and clinical expert opinion during an item-generation process, leading to development of a preliminary version of the Symptoms of Major Depressive Disorder Scale (SMDDS). Fifteen patients participated in three waves of cognitive interviews, during which the SMDDS was further refined., Conclusions: The SMDDS is a 35-item PRO measure intended for use as an endpoint in MDD clinical trials to support medical product labeling. The SMDDS uses a 7-day recall period and verbal rating scales. It was developed in accordance with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s PRO Guidance and best practices. Qualitative interviews have provided evidence for content validity. Future quantitative studies will confirm the SMDDS's measurement properties and support FDA qualification.

Objective: To determine the extent to which prospectively identified responders to cognitive therapy (CT) for recurrent major depressive disorder (MDD) hypothesized to be lower risk show significantly less relapse or recurrence than treated higher risk counterparts across 32 months., Method: Outpatients (N = 523), aged 18-70, with recurrent MDD received 12-14 weeks of CT. The last 7 consecutive scores from the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD-17) were used to stratify or define responders (n = 290) into lower (7 HRSD-17 scores of less than or equal to 6; n = 49; 17%) and higher risk (n = 241; 83%). The lower risk patients entered the 32-month follow-up. Higher risk patients were randomized to 8 months of continuation-phase CT or clinical management plus double-blind fluoxetine or pill placebo, with a 24-month follow-up., Results: Lower risk patients were significantly less likely to relapse over the first 8 months compared to higher risk patients (Kaplan-Meier [KM] estimates; i.e., 4.9% = lower risk; 22.1% = higher risk; log-rank χ2 = 6.83, p = .009). This increased risk was attenuated, but not completely neutralized, by active continuation-phase therapy. Over the subsequent 24 months, the lower and higher risk groups did not differ in relapse or recurrence risk., Conclusions: Rapid and sustained acute-phase CT remission identifies responders who do not require continuation-phase treatment to prevent relapse (i.e., return of an index episode). To prevent recurrence (i.e., new episodes), however, strategic allocation and more frequent "dosing" of CT and/or targeted maintenance-phase treatments may be required. Longitudinal follow-up is recommended., ((c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).)

Background: Few brief, self-report measures exist that can reliably predict adverse suicidality outcomes in patients with BD. This study utilized the Concise Health Risk Tracking Self-Report (CHRT) to assess suicidality in patients with BD and examined its psychometric performance, clinical correlates, and prospective value in predicting adverse events related to suicidality., Methods: The CHRT was administered at baseline and follow-up to 482 adult patients in Bipolar CHOICE, a 6-month randomized comparative effectiveness trial. The Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (CSSRS) was used at baseline to assess lifetime history of suicide attempts and related behaviors. Clinician-rated measures of mood (Bipolar Inventory of Symptoms Scale) and bipolar symptoms (Clinical Global Impressions-Bipolar Version) were conducted at baseline and follow-up., Results: The CHRT showed excellent internal consistency and construct validity and was highly correlated with clinician ratings of depression, anxiety, and overall functioning at baseline and throughout the study. Baseline CHRT scores significantly predicted risk of subsequent suicidality-related Serious Adverse Events (sSAEs), after controlling for mood and comorbidity. Specifically, the hazard of a sSAE increased by 76% for every 10-point increase in baseline CHRT score. Past history of suicide attempts and related behaviors, as assessed by the CSSRS, did not predict subsequent sSAEs., Limitations: The CSSRS was used to assess static risk factors in terms of past suicidal behaviors and may have been a more powerful predictor over longer-term follow-up., Conclusions: The CHRT offers a quick and robust self-report tool for assessing suicidal risk and has important implications for future research and clinical practice., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Medical comorbidities contribute to poor antidepressant response, treatment resistance, and poor outcomes in many patients with depression. Depression can co-occur with thyroid conditions, chronic pain conditions, central nervous system disorders, and more. Inflammatory conditions such as diabetes and obesity are also associated with depression, and the connection between inflammation and depression may lead to testing that could better match patients to specific antidepressant treatment. Interventions for patients with depression and a comorbid medical condition include careful selection of antidepressant therapy as well as psychotherapy and adjunctive agents., (© Copyright 2016 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)

Objective: Examine the effects of obesity and metabolic syndrome on outcome in bipolar disorder., Method: The Comparative Effectiveness of a Second Generation Antipsychotic Mood Stabilizer and a Classic Mood Stabilizer for Bipolar Disorder (Bipolar CHOICE) study randomized 482 participants with bipolar disorder in a 6-month trial comparing lithium- and quetiapine-based treatment. Baseline variables were compared between groups with and without obesity, with and without abdominal obesity, and with and without metabolic syndrome respectively. The effects of baseline obesity, abdominal obesity, and metabolic syndrome on outcomes were examined using mixed effects linear regression models., Results: At baseline, 44.4% of participants had obesity, 48.0% had abdominal obesity, and 27.3% had metabolic syndrome; neither obesity, nor abdominal obesity, nor metabolic syndrome were associated with increased global severity, mood symptoms, or suicidality, or with poorer functioning or life satisfaction. Treatment groups did not differ on prevalence of obesity, abdominal obesity, or metabolic syndrome. By contrast, among the entire cohort, obesity was associated with less global improvement and less improvement in total mood and depressive symptoms, suicidality, functioning, and life satisfaction after 6 months of treatment. Abdominal obesity was associated with similar findings. Metabolic syndrome had no effect on outcome., Conclusion: Obesity and abdominal obesity, but not metabolic syndrome, were associated with less improvement after 6 months of lithium- or quetiapine-based treatment., (© 2015 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The purposes of this study were (a) to describe the adaptation and psychometric properties of the Skills for Cognitive Therapy (SoCT) measure for use by an independent observer (SoCT-IO) who rates the cognitive therapy (CT) skill acquisition, comprehension, and use by depressed adults and (b) to compare ratings of CT skill comprehension, acquisition, and use by independent observers to those by patients and therapists. Like the other SoCT versions, the SoCT-IO consists of 8 items that assess patients' comprehension, acquisition, and use of cognitive and behavioral skills for managing depressive symptoms, using a 5-point Likert-type scale. Four experienced raters (2 doctoral-level CT therapists and 2 bachelor-level nontherapists) used the SoCT-IO to rate 80 CT videotapes from both mid and later sessions in acute-phase CT from a randomized controlled trial for outpatients with recurrent major depression. The SoCT-IO ratings showed excellent internal consistency reliability and moderately high interrater reliability. Concurrent validity was demonstrated by convergence of the SoCT-IO with 2 other versions of the SoCT, 1 completed by therapists (SoCT-O) and the other by patients (SoCT-P). SoCT-IO ratings evidenced good predictive validity: Independent observers' ratings of patient CT skills midphase in therapy predicted treatment response even when the predictive effects of SoCT ratings by therapists and patients were controlled. The SoCT-IO is a psychometrically sound measure of CT skill comprehension, acquisition and use for rating outpatients with recurrent depression. The clinical utility and implications for using the SoCT-IO as a measure of CT skills acquisition are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record, ((c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).)

Introduction: Vortioxetine is a structurally novel medication that has recently been approved for treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). This medication is a serotonin reuptake inhibitor that also has a number of other potentially relevant effects on serotoninergic receptors, which may differentiate the drug's effects from those of current first-line antidepressants, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs)., Areas Covered: This article will review the basic clinical pharmacology of vortioxetine, summarize the major clinical trials that were performed prior to approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), discuss relevant post-marketing studies of this drug, and offer expert commentary on the significance of this new agent in clinical practice. Pre-approval studies were identified as all randomized, placebo-controlled studies of vortioxetine listed on clinicaltrials.gov. Other referenced studies were identified via a MEDLINE database literature search in August 2015 using the key search terms, vortioxetine and Lu AA21004, combined with additional terms that included pharmacological profile, pharmacokinetics, drug interactions, adverse effects, side effects, safety, major depression, and major depressive disorder. We identified relevant systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized trials and preclinical studies of importance., Expert Opinion: Results of placebo-controlled trials suggest efficacy and an overall safety profile comparable to existing first-line antidepressants. The most common side effects are nausea, vomiting and constipation. Results of several studies indicate that vortioxetine may have therapeutic effects on cognition (e.g., memory and executive functioning) that exceed that of standard antidepressants. Disadvantages include cost and the current paucity of long-term efficacy data from large clinical trials. The authors suggest that vortioxetine is currently a good second-line antidepressant option and shows promise, pending additional long-term data, to become a first-line antidepressant option.

Objective: To examine the effects of treatment on functioning impairments and quality of life and assess baseline functioning and employment status as predictors of treatment response in symptomatic individuals from the Bipolar Clinical Health Outcomes Initiative in Comparative Effectiveness (Bipolar CHOICE) study., Method: Bipolar CHOICE was an 11-site, 6-month randomized effectiveness study comparing lithium to quetiapine, each with adjunctive personalized treatments (APTs). We examined post hoc (1) the effects of treatment on functioning, (2) how changes in functioning differed between treatment responders and nonresponders, and (3) whether functioning and employment status mediated treatment response in 482 participants with DSM-IV-TR bipolar I or II disorder from September 2010 to September 2013., Results: Treatment was associated with significant improvements in functioning and quality of life, regardless of treatment group (P values < .0001). Responders showed greater improvements in quality of life (Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire P values < .05) and functioning (Longitudinal Interval Follow-up Evaluation-Range of Impaired Functioning Tool P values < .05) than nonresponders. Unemployed or disabled participants at baseline had significantly greater illness severity at baseline than employed participants (P values < .05). Over the study duration, employed participants reported greater improvements in physical health and quality of life in leisure activities than both unemployed and disabled participants (P values < .05). Individuals who saw greater improvement in functioning and quality of life tended to show greater improvements in depressive and anxiety symptoms (P values ≤ .0001), as well as overall illness severity (P values < .001). Early (8 weeks) and very early (4 weeks) clinical changes in mood symptoms predicted changes in functioning and quality of life at 6 months (P values < .001)., Conclusions: Prior disability status was associated with a worse treatment response and prospective illness course. Results implicate functioning and employment status as important markers of illness severity and likelihood of recovery in bipolar disorder, suggesting that interventions that target functional impairment may improve outcomes., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier for the Bipolar CHOICE study: NCT01331304., (© Copyright 2016 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)

Introduction: Although safer and easier to use antidepressants (ie.,SSRIs/SNRIs) have largely displaced MAOIs, these medications still have a role in difficult to treat conditions. Efforts to improve MAOIs benefit-risk profile resulted on the reversible MAOI and in the first antidepressant patch (selegiline transdermal delivery system-STS). The later had been available in the US since 2006. Thus a review on its safety profile and comparative efficacy is timely., Areas Covered: This review provides an overview of STS's clinical pharmacology and summarizes what has been learned across nearly a decade of experience. Product labels and the search engine PubMed were used to obtain relevant information., Expert Opinion: STS remains a unique treatment option. It is the only FDA-approved antidepressant for patients with significant problems ingesting, tolerating, or absorbing oral medications. It remains the only MAOI that can be initiated without dietary restrictions at a therapeutic dose and has a low incidence of side effects when compared to other MAOIs. STS also provides an interesting option for depressed patients suffering from Parkinson's disease. However these advantages are counterweighted by drawbacks including the need for wash-out periods and the lack of convincing data illustrating its utility for treatment of more severe, treatment refractory depression.

Background: Bipolar disorder is among the 10 most disabling medical conditions worldwide. While lithium has been used extensively for bipolar disorder since the 1970s, second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) have supplanted lithium since 1998. To date, no randomized comparative-effectiveness study has compared lithium and any SGA., Method: Within the duration of the study (September 2010-September 2013), participants with bipolar I or II disorder (DSM-IV-TR) were randomized for 6 months to receive lithium (n = 240) or quetiapine (n = 242). Lithium and quetiapine were combined with other medications for bipolar disorder consistent with typical clinical practice (adjunctive personalized treatment [APT], excluding any SGA for the lithium + APT group and excluding lithium or any other SGA for the quetiapine + APT group). Coprimary outcome measures included Clinical Global Impressions-Efficacy Index (CGI-EI) and necessary clinical adjustments, which measured number of changes in adjunctive personalized treatment. Secondary measures included a full range of symptoms, cardiovascular risk, functioning, quality of life, suicidal ideation and behavior, and adverse events., Results: Participants improved across all measures, and over 20% had a sustained response. Primary (CGI-EI, P = .59; necessary clinical adjustments, P = .15) and secondary outcome changes were not statistically significantly different between the 2 groups. For participants with greater manic/hypomanic symptoms, CGI-EI changes were significantly more favorable with quetiapine + APT (P = .02). Among those with anxiety, the lithium + APT group had fewer necessary clinical adjustments per month (P = .02). Lithium was better tolerated than quetiapine in terms of the burden of side effects frequency (P = .05), intensity (P = .01), and impairment (P = .01)., Conclusions: Despite adequate power to detect clinically meaningful differences, we found outcomes with lithium + APT and quetiapine + APT were not significantly different across 6 months of treatment for bipolar disorder., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier for the Bipolar CHOICE study: NCT01331304., (© Copyright 2016 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)

Objective: People with bipolar disorder are at high risk of suicide, but no clinically useful scale has been validated in this population. The aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties in bipolar disorder of the 7- and 12-item versions of the Concise Health Risk Tracking Self-Report (CHRT-SR), a scale measuring suicidal ideation, suicidal behavior, and associated symptoms., Methods: The CHRT was administered to 283 symptomatic outpatients with bipolar I or II disorder who were randomized to receive lithium plus optimized personalized treatment (OPT), or OPT without lithium in a six month longitudinal comparative effectiveness trial. Participants were assessed using structured diagnostic interviews, clinician-rated assessments, and self-report questionnaires., Results: The internal consistency (Cronbach α) was 0.80 for the 7-item CHRT-SR and 0.90 for the 12-item CHRT-SR with a consistent factor structure, and three independent factors (current suicidal thoughts and plans, hopelessness, and perceived lack of social support) for the 7-item version. CHRT-SR scores are correlated with measures of depression, functioning, and quality of life, but not with mania scores., Conclusions: The 7- and 12-item CHRT-SR both had excellent psychometric properties in a sample of symptomatic subjects with bipolar disorder. The scale is highly correlated with depression, functioning, and quality of life, but not with mania. Future research is needed to determine whether the CHRT-SR will be able to predict suicide attempts in clinical practice., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: The neurotrophic hypothesis of major depressive disorder (MDD) postulates that the pathology of this illness incorporates a down-regulation of neurotrophin signaling. Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) is the most studied neurotrophic mediator regarding the neurobiology of MDD. Nevertheless, emerging evidence has implicated the multi-competent angiogenic and neurogenic molecule - vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) - in hippocampal neurogenesis and depression pathophysiology., Objective: To compare peripheral levels of VEGF between individuals with MDD and healthy controls., Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of original studies measuring peripheral levels of VEGF in participants with MDD compared to healthy controls. We searched the Pubmed/MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycInfo databases for studies published in any language through December 16th, 2014., Results: Fourteen studies met eligibility criteria (N=1633). VEGF levels were significantly elevated in individuals with MDD when compared to healthy controls (Hedges's g=0.343; 95% CI: 0.146-0.540; P<0.01). Funnel plot inspection and the Egger's test did not provide evidence of publication bias. A significant degree of heterogeneity was observed (Q=38.355, df=13, P<0.001; I(2)=66.1%), which was explored through meta-regression and subgroup analyses. Overall methodological quality, sample for assay (plasma versus serum), as well as the matching of MDD and control samples for age and gender emerged as significant sources of heterogeneity., Conclusions: Taken together, extant data indicate that VEGF shows promise as a biomarker for MDD, and supports that this mediator may be involved in neuroplasticity mechanisms underlying the pathophysiology of MDD., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The aim of this post-hoc analysis was to determine whether early symptom improvement with extended release quetiapine (quetiapine XR) may predict treatment outcome in patients with major depressive disorder. Data were from 6, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of quetiapine XR (2 fixed-dose and 2 flexible-dose monotherapy and 2 adjunct studies) in adult patients with major depressive disorder. Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and Clinical Global Impression-Severity Score (CGI-S) were assessed at baseline, weeks 2, 4, and 6. Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) was assessed at baseline and week 6. The MADRS improvement at week 2 (15%, 20%, 25%, 30%) was used to predict response and remission, based on MADRS (50% improvement; total score ≤ 12) or HAM-D (50% improvement; total score ≤ 7). The CGI-S improvement (1 point) at week 2 was used to predict final outcome (CGI-S score ≤ 2). The predictive value for early improvement with quetiapine XR was found to be "very strong" (Yule's Q coefficient, a combined measure of sensitivity and specificity) using 30% MADRS improvement as the threshold. This was relatively comparable for response and remission and for fixed-dose, flexible-dose, and adjunct studies. This was also observed for placebo. Exceptions were: adjunct studies (where predictivity was lower for ongoing antidepressant/placebo), and for remission (predictivity for remission appeared lower than for response with placebo). In conclusion, outcome at week 6 with quetiapine XR for a major depressive episode could be predicted by 30% improvement after 2 weeks, a finding that could give doctors confidence to continue treatment and may facilitate adherence in patients.

Background: The cognitive model of depression suggests that cognitive therapy (CT) improves major depressive disorder (MDD) in part by changing depressive cognitive content (e.g. dysfunctional attitudes, hopelessness). The current analyses clarified: (1) the durability of improvements in cognitive content made by acute-phase CT responders; (2) whether continuation-phase CT (C-CT) or fluoxetine (FLX) further improves cognitive content; and (3) the extent to which cognitive content mediates continuation treatments' effects on depressive symptoms and major depressive relapse/recurrence., Method: Out-patients with recurrent MDD who responded to acute-phase CT (n = 241) were randomized to 8 months of C-CT, FLX or pill placebo (PBO) and followed for an 24 additional months. Cognitive content was assessed approximately every 4 months using five standard patient-report measures., Results: Large improvements in cognitive content made during acute-phase CT were maintained for 32 months, with 78-90% of patients scoring in normal ranges, on average. Cognitive content varied little between C-CT, FLX and PBO arms, overall. Small, transient improvements in cognitive content in C-CT or FLX compared with PBO patients did not clearly mediate the treatments' effects on depressive symptoms or on major depressive relapse/recurrence., Conclusions: Outpatients with recurrent MDD who respond to acute-phase CT show durable improvements in cognitive content. C-CT or FLX may not continue to improve patient-reported cognitive content substantively, and thus may treat recurrent MDD by other paths.

Objective: To assess the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of brexpiprazole as adjunctive therapy to antidepressant treatments (ADTs) in adults with major depressive disorder (as defined by DSM-IV-TR criteria) and inadequate response to ADTs., Method: Patients with historical inadequate response to 1-3 ADTs were enrolled. All patients entered a prospective 8-week phase on physician-determined, open-label ADT. Those with inadequate response were randomized to ADT + brexpiprazole 2 mg/d or ADT + placebo for 6 weeks. The study was conducted between July 2011 and May 2013. The primary efficacy end point was change from baseline to week 6 in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. The key secondary end point was change from baseline to week 6 in Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) mean score. The efficacy population comprised all patients who had ≥ 1 dose of study drug in the double-blind phase and both baseline and ≥ 1 postrandomization MADRS scores. The efficacy population per final protocol included patients from the efficacy population who met amended randomization criteria of inadequate response throughout prospective treatment., Results: Brexpiprazole (n = 175) reduced mean MADRS total score versus placebo (n = 178) at week 6 in the efficacy population per final protocol (-8.36 vs -5.15, P = .0002). Brexpiprazole improved SDS mean score versus placebo (-1.35 vs -0.89, P = .0349). The most common treatment-related adverse events were weight gain (brexpiprazole, 8.0%; placebo, 3.1%) and akathisia (7.4% vs 1.0%)., Conclusions: Adjunctive brexpiprazole therapy demonstrated efficacy and was well tolerated in patients with major depressive disorder and inadequate response to ADTs., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01360645., (© Copyright 2015 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)

Objective: To evaluate efficacy, safety, and tolerability of brexpiprazole adjunctive to antidepressant treatments (ADTs) in patients with major depressive disorder (as defined by DSM-IV-TR criteria) with inadequate response to ADTs., Method: Patients still depressed despite 1-3 prior ADTs followed by 8 weeks of prospective physician-determined, open-label ADT were randomized (1:1:1) to double-blind brexpiprazole 3 mg/d, brexpiprazole 1 mg/d, or placebo for 6 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score from baseline to week 6. The key secondary efficacy end point was change in Sheehan Disability Scale mean score. The Hochberg procedure corrected for multiplicity. The efficacy population comprised all patients who had ≥ 1 dose of study drug with baseline and ≥ 1 postrandomization MADRS scores; the efficacy population per final protocol consisted of efficacy population patients meeting amended criteria for inadequate response throughout the 8-week prospective ADT. The study was conducted between June 2011 and September 2013., Results: In the efficacy population per final protocol, brexpiprazole 3 mg (n = 213) showed a greater improvement in MADRS total score versus placebo (n = 203; -8.29 vs -6.33; P = .0079), whereas brexpiprazole 1 mg did not (n = 211; -7.64 vs -6.33; P = .0737). The brexpiprazole groups showed comparable improvement in SDS mean score versus placebo (least squares [LS] mean difference: [1 mg] -0.49, P = .0158; [3 mg] -0.48, P = .0191). The most frequent adverse events were akathisia (4.4%, 13.5%, 2.3%), headache (9.3%, 6.1%, 7.7%), and weight increase (6.6%, 5.7%, 0.9%) in brexpiprazole 1-mg, 3-mg, and placebo groups, respectively. Mean changes from baseline in Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (LS mean difference = 0.08, P = .0141) and Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale (LS mean difference = 0.17, P = .0001) total scores were significantly greater with brexpiprazole 3 mg versus placebo., Conclusions: Brexpiprazole 3 mg demonstrated efficacy versus placebo in the efficacy population per final protocol. Both doses of brexpiprazole were well tolerated., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01360632., (© Copyright 2015 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)

Remission rates for depression continue to be low, and for many patients, complex treatment regimens are needed for optimal response. Many physicians do not fully understand how and why depression medications work or which ones will complement each other. This CME Webcast covers the different mechanisms of action of current pharmacotherapeutic options for depression, both monotherapy and adjunctive medications, and shows clinicians how to use their understanding of mechanisms of action to choose the most effective treatment strategy for their patients, especially those with treatment-resistant or difficult-to-treat depression., (© Copyright 2015 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)

Background: Optimal successive treatment decisions are not well established after an initial medication nonresponse in major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder. While practice guidelines offer consensus-based expert treatment recommendations, little is known about "real world" pharmacology decision making by practicing psychopharmacologists., Materials and Methods: We surveyed via Internet the national membership of the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology (ASCP) to study preferred pharmacotherapy strategies and factors that influence medication choices for patients with mood disorders., Results: Surveys were returned by 154/752 ASCP members (21%). After nonresponse to a serotonin reuptake inhibitor in major depressive disorder, participants equally favored switching within or across antidepressant classes. After a partial response, adjunctive bupropion was the preferred intervention, followed by changing antidepressant classes. Atypical antipsychotic augmentation was only a fourth-line consideration, even though moderate or marked efficacy was perceived in most instances with olanzapine, aripiprazole, and quetiapine. Respondents favored avoiding antidepressants in bipolar I patients with mixed/cycling features or prior antidepressant-associated mania/hypomania. In rapid cyclers, they advocated antidepressant cessation and preferred the use of atypical antipsychotics and lamotrigine., Conclusions: Participating psychopharmacologists treating adults with mood disorders report prescribing medications that largely mirror the evidence base with only a few notable exceptions, in consideration of the characteristics of definable clinical subpopulations., (© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Two phase 2B, randomized, double-blind studies assessed the efficacy and safety of fixed or flexible dose of triple monoamine uptake inhibitor BMS-820836 in patients with treatment-resistant depression to demonstrate whether switching to BMS-820836 was superior to the continuation of standard antidepressant treatment. Patients with a history of inadequate response to 1 to 3 adequate trials of antidepressant therapies were prospectively treated with duloxetine 60 mg/d for 8 weeks (CN162-006) or duloxetine 60 mg/d or escitalopram 20 mg/d for 7 weeks (CN162-007). Inadequate responders were randomized to continue their prospective phase treatment or switch to flexible-dose (0.5-2 mg/d; CN162-006) or fixed-dose (0.25, 0.5, 1, or 2 mg/d; CN162-007) BMS-820836 for 6 weeks. The primary end point in both studies was mean change in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score from randomization to study end point. BMS-820836 flexible (0.5-2 mg/d) or fixed dose of 1 mg/d or greater showed efficacy similar to the continuation of antidepressant treatment, with no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences. In the CN162-006 study, the adjusted mean (SE) change in MADRS total score was -8.7 (0.661) and -8.1 (0.656) for BMS-820836 and duloxetine, respectively (P = 0.526). In the CN162-007 study, the adjusted mean (SE) change in MADRS total score was -7.3 (0.830) and -6.6 (0.842) for BMS-820836 of 1 and 2 mg, respectively, and -6.9 (0.602) for the continuation group (P = 0.910). Thus, BMS-820836 was well tolerated, with no evidence of dose-dependent discontinuations due to adverse events, but it failed to demonstrate superiority to the continuation of an existing antidepressant in patients with treatment-resistant depression.

Unipolar and bipolar depressive episodes have a similar clinical presentation that suggests common dysfunction of the brain's reward system. Here, we evaluated the relationship of both dimensional depression severity and diagnostic category to reward system function in both bipolar and unipolar depression. In total, 89 adults were included, including 27 with bipolar depression, 25 with unipolar depression, and 37 healthy comparison subjects. Subjects completed both a monetary reward task and a resting-state acquisition during 3T BOLD fMRI. Across disorders, depression severity was significantly associated with reduced activation for wins compared with losses in bilateral ventral striatum, anterior cingulate cortex, posterior cingulate cortex, and right anterior insula. Resting-state connectivity within this reward network was also diminished in proportion to depression severity, most notably connectivity strength in the left ventral striatum. In addition, there were categorical differences between patient groups: resting-state connectivity at multiple reward network nodes was higher in bipolar than in unipolar depression. Reduced reward system task activation and resting-state connectivity therefore appear to be a brain phenotype that is dimensionally related to depression severity in both bipolar and unipolar depression. In contrast, categorical differences in reward system resting connectivity between unipolar and bipolar depression may reflect differential risk of mania. Reward system dysfunction thus represents a common brain mechanism with relevance that spans categories of psychiatric diagnosis.

Background: Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) customarily uses high-field electromagnets to achieve therapeutic efficacy in Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). Low-field magnetic stimulation also may be useful for treatment of MDD, with fewer treatment-emergent adverse events., Objective/hypothesis: To examine efficacy, safety, and tolerability of low-field magnetic stimulation synchronized to an individual's alpha frequency (IAF) (synchronized TMS, or sTMS) for treatment of MDD., Methods: Six-week double-blind sham-controlled treatment trial of a novel device that used three rotating neodymium magnets to deliver sTMS treatment. IAF was determined from a single-channel EEG prior to first treatment. Subjects had baseline 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HamD17) ≥ 17., Results: 202 subjects comprised the intent-to-treat (ITT) sample, and 120 subjects completed treatment per-protocol (PP). There was no difference in efficacy between active and sham in the ITT sample. Subjects in the PP sample (N = 59), however, had significantly greater mean decrease in HamD17 than sham (N = 60) (-9.00 vs. -6.56, P = 0.033). PP subjects with a history of poor response or intolerance to medication showed greater improvement with sTMS than did treatment-naïve subjects (-8.58 vs. -4.25, P = 0.017). Efficacy in the PP sample reflects exclusion of subjects who received fewer than 80% of scheduled treatments or were inadvertently treated at the incorrect IAF; these subgroups failed to separate from sham. There was no difference in adverse events between sTMS and sham, and no serious adverse events attributable to sTMS., Conclusions: Results suggest that sTMS may be effective, safe, and well tolerated for treating MDD when administered as intended., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

After patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) respond to acute-phase cognitive therapy (CT), continuation-phase treatments may be applied to improve long-term outcomes. We clarified which CT responders experience remission, recovery, relapse, and recurrence by testing baseline demographic, clinical, and personality variables. The sample of CT responders at higher risk of relapse (N = 241) was randomized to 8 months of continuation-phase CT, double-blinded fluoxetine, or pill placebo, and followed 24 months (Jarrett & Thase, 2010). Patients with lower positive emotionality and behavioral activation at the end of acute-phase CT showed increased risk for relapse/recurrence of MDD. In addition, patients with lower positive emotionality and behavioral activation, as well as higher residual depression (including emotional, cognitive, and social facets), showed decreased probability of remission (≥6 continuous weeks of minimal or absent symptoms) after acute-phase CT. Finally, patients with greater residual depression, as well as younger age and earlier MDD onset, showed decreased probability of recovery (≥35 continuous weeks of minimal or absent symptoms) after acute-phase CT. Moderator analyses did not reveal differential prediction across the continuation phase treatment arms. These results may help clinicians gauge the prognoses and need for continuation treatment among MDD patients who respond to acute-phase CT., ((c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved).)

Background: Vilazodone, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and 5-HT1A receptor partial agonist, is approved for treating major depressive disorder in adults. This study (NCT01629966 ClinicalTrials.gov) evaluated the efficacy and safety of vilazodone in adults with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD)., Methods: A multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, fixed-dose study in patients with GAD randomized (1:1:1) to placebo (n = 223), or vilazodone 20 mg/day (n = 230) or 40 mg/day (n = 227). Primary and secondary efficacy parameters were total score change from baseline to week 8 on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAMA) and Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), respectively, analyzed using a predefined mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM). Safety outcomes were presented by descriptive statistics., Results: The least squares mean difference (95% confidence interval) in HAMA total score change from baseline (MMRM) was statistically significant for vilazodone 40 mg/day versus placebo (-1.80 [-3.26, -0.34]; P = .0312 [adjusted for multiple comparisons]), but not for vilazodone 20 mg/day versus placebo. Mean change from baseline in SDS total score was not significantly different for either dose of vilazodone versus placebo when adjusted for multiplicity; significant improvement versus placebo was noted for vilazodone 40 mg/day without adjustment for multiplicity (P = .0349). The incidence of adverse events was similar for vilazodone 20 and 40 mg/day (∼71%) and slightly lower for placebo (62%). Nausea, diarrhea, dizziness, vomiting, and fatigue were reported in ≥5% of patients in either vilazodone group and at least twice the rate of placebo., Conclusions: Vilazodone was effective in treating anxiety symptoms of GAD. No new safety concerns were identified., (© 2015 The Authors. Depression and Anxiety published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Identification of predictors of treatment response in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) may facilitate improved disease management. Data were pooled from two 6-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of extended-release quetiapine (quetiapine XR; 150 or 300 mg/day) as adjunct to ongoing antidepressant therapy. Effects of psychiatric history and baseline demographic and disease characteristics on efficacy outcomes (Week 6 Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] total score reduction) were evaluated in population subgroups (quetiapine XR both doses pooled, n = 616; placebo, n = 303). Baseline Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) score and previous depressive episodes on Week 6 MADRS total score change, and baseline MADRS individual item scores on Week 6 change in CGI-Improvement score, were also evaluated. No major differences between responders and non-responders to quetiapine XR were observed for patient characteristics or demographic and disease characteristics. No suggestion of a predictive association was found between baseline CGI-S score, number of depressive episodes, and baseline MADRS item scores and efficacy outcomes. These analyses showed no major differences between responders and non-responders, and no predictive association between the parameters assessed and efficacy outcomes for adjunct quetiapine XR in patients with MDD and an inadequate response to prior antidepressant therapy., (© The Author(s) 2014.)

Objective: To assess short-term efficacy and safety of desvenlafaxine 50 and 100 mg/d versus placebo for treating major depressive disorder (MDD). Assessment of sexual function was a secondary objective., Method: Outpatients (≥ 18 years) who met criteria for MDD from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision and had screening and baseline 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS17) total scores ≥ 20 were randomly assigned to placebo or desvenlafaxine 50 or 100 mg/d in an 8-week study conducted from October 2011 to August 2012. The primary efficacy end point was change from baseline in HDRS17 total score at week 8, analyzed using a mixed-effects model for repeated measures. Sexual function was assessed using the Arizona Sexual Experiences Scale (ASEX)., Results: The safety population included 909 patients (intent-to-treat population, n = 886). Significantly greater improvement in adjusted mean HDRS17 total score from baseline to week 8 was observed for desvenlafaxine 50 mg (-11.28; P = .006) and desvenlafaxine 100 mg (-11.67; P < .001) compared with placebo (-9.71), with adjustment for multiplicity. In the ASEX total score analysis (n = 422), the treatment by gender interaction was not significant; thus, genders were combined for subsequent analyses. Comparisons for desvenlafaxine versus placebo for change from baseline in ASEX total and all item scores found P > .05, with no adjustment for multiplicity. Rates of sexual dysfunction based on ASEX were comparable among treatment groups., Conclusions: These results support previous findings demonstrating antidepressant efficacy, safety, and tolerability of desvenlafaxine 50 and 100 mg/d versus placebo. Sexual function was comparable between desvenlafaxine and placebo., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01432457., (© Copyright 2015 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)

Objective: This study examines characteristics of individuals with bipolar disorder who sought psychotherapy versus those who did not., Methods: Bipolar CHOICE was an 11-site comparative effectiveness study of lithium versus quetiapine in symptomatic outpatients (N = 482) with bipolar disorder. At baseline, participants' psychotherapy use within the past 3 months, mood, functioning, and overall health were assessed. Logistic regressions were used to test whether psychotherapy users and non-users differed on various demographic and clinical variables at baseline. Mixed-effects regression was used to determine whether psychotherapy groups differed on response to treatment over the 6-month study. Kaplan-Meier plots and log-rank tests were employed to test whether there were any differences in time to recovery (CGI-BP ≤ 2 for at least 8 weeks) between the groups., Results: Thirty one percent of participants reported using psychotherapy services. Psychotherapy users reported greater medication side effect burden than non-users and were more likely to have moderate to high suicide risk and at least one anxiety disorder. Participants not utilizing medications or psychotherapy had greater mania symptom severity, were younger, and less educated than medication only users. Medication only users were more likely to be married than the other participants., Conclusions: These data suggest that a minority of individuals with bipolar disorder attend psychotherapy services, and those that do have greater illness burden., (© The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists 2015.)

Objective: To evaluate the effect of the serotonin-norepinephrine re-uptake inhibitor desvenlafaxine on blood pressure and incidence of new onset hypertension in pooled short-term studies and in two longer-term, randomized withdrawal studies., Research Design and Methods: Data from patients randomly assigned to desvenlafaxine 10 mg to 400 mg/day or placebo in 11 short-term (8-12 weeks), fixed-dose, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of major depressive disorder (MDD) were pooled for analysis; two desvenlafaxine randomized withdrawal studies (36 and 46 weeks) were analyzed separately., Clinical Trial Registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov , NCT00072774, NCT00073762, NCT00277823, NCT00300378, NCT00384033, NCT00798707, NCT00863798, NCT01121484, NCT00824291, NCT01432457, NCT00075257, NCT00887224., Main Outcome Measures: Outcomes included change from baseline in supine systolic blood pressure (SSBP) and supine diastolic blood pressure (SDBP), assessed using a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis, and incidence of hypertension (defined as three consecutive second SDBP measures ≥90 mm Hg AND increase of ≥10 mm Hg from baseline and/or SSBP ≥140 mm Hg AND increase of ≥10 mm Hg), analyzed using Cochran Mantel Hanzael tests. Potential predictors of change in SSBP and SDBP at LOCF were examined by including predictor variables in a regression model., Results: In the pooled, short-term studies, mean changes from baseline over time in SSBP and SDBP were statistically significant compared with placebo for the desvenlafaxine doses of 10 mg/day or greater for SSBP (p ≤ 0.0004; MMRM) and 25 mg/day or greater for SDBP (p ≤ 0.0449; MMRM). The proportion of patients with new onset hypertension differed significantly from placebo for the 50, 200, and 400 mg/day doses (1.9%, 2.4%, 4.8%, respectively, vs 0.8%; all p ≤ 0.0244). Predictors of change in BP included baseline SDBP, baseline SSBP, dose, body mass index, gender, age, race, and history of hypertension., Limitations: Data were pooled from studies which differed somewhat in study design and patient demographics. None of the studies were originally designed to examine treatment effects on BP. Study entry criteria limit generalization of these results to medically stable patients with a primary diagnosis of MDD., Conclusions: Short-term desvenlafaxine treatment was associated with small but statistically significant increases in SSBP and SDBP.