Search

Background: Psychosocial outcomes from the Prevention of Recurrent Episodes of Depression with Venlafaxine ER for Two Years (PREVENT) study were evaluated.Methods: Adult outpatients with recurrent major depressive disorder (MDD) and response or remission following 6-month continuation treatment with venlafaxine extended release (ER) were randomized to receive venlafaxine ER or placebo for 1 year. Patients without recurrence on venlafaxine ER during year 1 were randomized to venlafaxine ER or placebo for year 2. Psychosocial functioning was assessed using the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire-Short Form (Q-LES-Q), Life Enjoyment Scale-Short Version (LES-S), Social Adjustment Scale-Self-Report (SAS-SR) total and individual factors, Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) (vitality, social functioning, and role function-emotional items), and Longitudinal Interval Follow-up Evaluation (LIFE).Results: At year 1 end, better overall psychosocial functioning was seen among patients randomly assigned to venlafaxine ER (n=129) vs placebo (n=129), with significant differences at end point on SF-36 role function-emotional, Q-LES-Q, and SAS-SR total, and work, house work, social/leisure, and extended-family factor scores (p≤0.05). At year 2 end, significant differences favored venlafaxine ER (n=43) vs placebo (n=40) on SF-36 vitality and role function-emotional, Q-LES-Q, LES-S, LIFE, and SAS-SR total, social/leisure, and extended-family factor scores (p≤0.05).Limitations: Patients with chronic MDD or treatment resistance were excluded and long-term specialist care was a financial incentive for treatment compliance. Discontinuation-related adverse events may have compromised the integrity of the treatment blind.Conclusions: For patients with recurrent MDD, 2 years' maintenance therapy with venlafaxine ER may improve psychosocial functioning vs placebo. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Extracts of St John's wort are widely used to treat depression. Although more than 2 dozen clinical trials have been conducted with St John's wort, most have significant flaws in design and do not enable meaningful interpretation.Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of a standardized extract of St John's wort with placebo in outpatients with major depression.Design and Setting: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial conducted between November 1998 and January 2000 in 11 academic medical centers in the United States.Participants: Two hundred adult outpatients (mean age, 42.4 years; 67.0% female; 85.9% white) diagnosed as having major depression and having a baseline Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) score of at least 20.Intervention: Participants completed a 1-week, single-blind run-in of placebo, then were randomly assigned to receive either St John's wort extract (n = 98; 900 mg/d for 4 weeks, increased to 1200 mg/d in the absence of an adequate response thereafter) or placebo (n = 102) for 8 weeks.Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was rate of change on the HAM-D over the treatment period. Secondary measures included the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A), the Global Assessment of Function (GAF) scale, and the Clinical Global Impression-Severity and -Improvement scales (CGI-S and CGI-I).Results: The random coefficient analyses for the HAM-D, HAM-A, CGI-S, and CGI-I all showed significant effects for time but not for treatment or time-by-treatment interaction (for HAM-D scores, P<.001, P =.16, and P =.58, respectively). Analysis of covariance showed nonsignificant effects for BDI and GAF scores. The proportion of participants achieving an a priori definition of response did not differ between groups. The number reaching remission of illness was significantly higher with St John's wort than with placebo (P =.02), but the rates were very low in the full intention-to-treat analysis (14/98 [14.3%] vs 5/102 [4.9%], respectively). St John's wort was safe and well tolerated. Headache was the only adverse event that occurred with greater frequency with St John's wort than placebo (39/95 [41%] vs 25/100 [25%], respectively).Conclusion: In this study, St John's wort was not effective for treatment of major depression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Is mirtazapine after two failed drug regimens more effective for treating depression than nortriptyline?METHODSDesign: Randomised controlled trial (RCT).Allocation: Unclear.Blinding: Single blind (assessors blinded).Follow up period: Fourteen weeks (treatment period only).Setting: Eighteen primary practices and 23 psychiatric practices in Maryland, USA: enrolment 2001 to 2004.Patients: 235 outpatients with a primary diagnosis of DSM-IV non-psychotic major depressive disorder on entry to the STAR*D study, who did not achieve an adequate response (Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS-SR[16]) score

Background: Patients with chronic forms of major depression are difficult to treat, and the relative efficacy of medications and psychotherapy is uncertain.Methods: We randomly assigned 681 adults with a chronic nonpsychotic major depressive disorder to 12 weeks of outpatient treatment with nefazodone (maximal dose, 600 mg per day), the cognitive behavioral-analysis system of psychotherapy (16 to 20 sessions), or both. At base line, all patients had scores of at least 20 on the 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (indicating clinically significant depression). Remission was defined as a score of 8 or less at weeks 10 and 12. For patients who did not have remission, a satisfactory response was defined as a reduction in the score by at least 50 percent from base line and a score of 15 or less. Raters were unaware of the patients' treatment assignments.Results: Of the 681 patients, 662 attended at least one treatment session and were included in the analysis of response. The overall rate of response (both remission and satisfactory response) was 48 percent in both the nefazodone group and in the psychotherapy group, as compared with 73 percent in the combined-treatment group. (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Among the 519 subjects who completed the study, the rates of response were 55 percent in the nefazodone group and 52 percent in the psychotherapy group, as compared with 85 percent in the combined-treatment group (P<0.001 for both comparisons). The rates of withdrawal were similar in the three groups. Adverse events in the nefazodone group were consistent with the known side effects of the drug (e.g., headache, somnolence, dry mouth, nausea, and dizziness).Conclusions: Although about half of patients with chronic forms of major depression have a response to short-term treatment with either nefazodone or a cognitive behavioral-analysis system of psychotherapy, the combination of the two is significantly more efficacious than either treatment alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: RECOVER is a randomized sham-controlled trial of vagus nerve stimulation and the largest such trial conducted with a psychiatric neuromodulation intervention., Objective: To describe pre-implantation baseline clinical characteristics and treatment history of patients with unipolar, major depressive disorder (MDD), overall and as a function of exposure to interventional psychiatric treatments (INTs), including electroconvulsive therapy, transcranial magnetic stimulation, and esketamine., Methods: Medical, psychiatric, and treatment records were reviewed by study investigators and an independent Study Eligibility Committee prior to study qualification. Clinical characteristics and treatment history (using Antidepressant Treatment History [Short] Form) were compared in those qualified (N = 493) versus not qualified (N = 228) for RECOVER, and among the qualified group as a function of exposure to INTs during the current major depressive episode (MDE)., Results: Unipolar MDD patients who qualified for RECOVER had marked TRD (median of 11.0 lifetime failed antidepressant treatments), severe disability (median WHODAS score of 50.0), and high rate of baseline suicidality (77% suicidal ideation, 40% previous suicide attempts). Overall, 71% had received at least one INT. Compared to the no INT group, INT recipients were younger and more severely depressed (QIDS-C, QIDS-SR), had greater suicidal ideation, earlier diagnosis of MDD, and failed more antidepressant medication trials., Conclusions: RECOVER-qualified unipolar patients had marked TRD and marked treatment resistance with most failing one or more prior INTs. Treatment with ≥1 INTs in the current MDE was associated with earlier age of MDD onset, more severe clinical presentation, and greater treatment resistance relative to patients without a history of INT., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03887715., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest MAB, BJM, and CLK have no conflicts of interest to declare. CRC has received research support from the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, Assurex Health, August Busch IV Foundation, Barnes-Jewish Hospital Foundation, LivaNova, National Institute of Mental Health, and the Taylor Family Institute for Innovative Psychiatric Research; consulted for LivaNova and Sage Therapeutics; and was a part-time employee at the John Cochran VA Medical Center in St. Louis. STA is a consultant to Genomind, LivaNova, Janssen, Neuronetics, and Sage Therapeutics; and has received research support from Compass Pathways and Neuronetics. HAS serves as a scientific adviser and receives consulting fees from Cerebral Therapeutics, Holmusk Technologies, LivaNova, MECTA Corporation, Neurolief, Neuronetics, Parow Entheobiosciences, and SigmaStim; receives honoraria and royalties from Elsevier and Oxford University Press; is the inventor of non-remunerative US patents for Focal Electrically Administered Seizure Therapy (FEAST), titration in the current domain in ECT, and the adjustment of current in ECT devices, each held by the SigmaStim Corporation; and is also the originator of Magnetic Seizure Therapy (MST). WD has consulted for Corium and Abbott; and has been on the LivaNova Advisory Board. MS is a Principal Investigator for Cassava Sciences, Eisai, Lilly, and LivaNova. JQ received clinical research support from LivaNova; has speaker bureau membership with Myriad Neuroscience and AbbVie; consultant for Eurofarma; stockholder at Instituto de Neurociencias; and receives copyrights from Artmed Editora, Artmed Panamericana, and Elsevier/Academic Press. RMA is one of the owners of a multi-site interventional psychiatry and clinical trials company, Seattle Neuropsychiatric Treatment Center; receives research funding from LivaNova and Compass Pathways; and previously received research funding from Alto Neuroscience. PR-P is a consultant for LivaNova, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, MotifNeuro, and Abbott Neuromodulation. GA receives Research Support from AbbVie, Accera, Axsome, Axovant, Biogen, Eisai, Eli-Lily, Neurotrope, Genentech, Intra Cellular, Janssen, Lundbeck, Neurim, Novartis, Otsuka, Roche, Sage, Suven, and Trans Tech; and is on the Speakers Bureau and Consultant for AbbVie, Acadia, Alkermes, Axsome, Biogen, Janssen, Idorsia, Lundbeck, Myriad, Neurocrine, Nestle, Otsuka, Sage, Sunovion, Teva and Takeda. MAM has received research support and/or speaker honoraria from Axsome, AbbVie, Alkermes, Intracellular, Janssen, Neurocrine, Otsuka, and Teva. DLD receives payment for clinical services for a former research patient from LivaNova; speaker for Janssen (esketamine nasal spray); and conducts forensic consultations, independent medical evaluations, and legal testimony for various firms. IC is co-owner of Mindful Behavioral Health, PLLC and receives speaker fees from Johnson and Johnson (Janssen). HL has received consulting and/or speaking fees from Alkermes, Axsome, Intracellular, Janssen, Karuna, Sage, and Teva; and conducts forensic consultations, independent medical evaluations, and legal testimony for various firms and co-owns Florida Center for TMS. JZ receives research support from Boehringer-Ingelheim, Compass Pathways, Hoffman-LaRoche, Johnson and Johnson (Janssen), LivaNova, Otsuka, Neurocrine Bioscience, and Sage Therapeutics; and received consulting fees from Alphasigma USA and Johnson and Johnson (Janssen). ZN is a consultant to LivaNova, Magnus Medical, and Motif; and has also received research support from LivaNova. ASK has received research support from Alto Neuroscience, Axial Therapeutics, BEAM Diagnostics, Curemark, Gilead Sciences, Liva Nova, and the National Institutes of Health. MTB is a former employee and a current consultant of LivaNova. Y-CL and OS are employees of LivaNova. SM, BO, and QT are employees of LivaNova and hold stock options. AJR has received consulting fees from Compass, Curbstone Consultant, Emmes, Evecxia Therapeutics, Holmusk Technologies, ICON, Johnson and Johnson (Janssen), LivaNova, MindStreet, Neurocrine Biosciences, Otsuka-US; speaking fees from LivaNova, Johnson and Johnson (Janssen), and Wolters Kluwer Health; royalties from Guilford Press and UT Southwestern Medical Center (for the Inventory of Depressive Symptoms and its derivatives); named co-inventor on US Patent 7,795,033 (Methods to Predict the Outcome of Treatment with Antidepressant Medication, Inventors: McMahon FJ, Laje G, Manji H, Rush AJ, Paddock S, Wilson AS) and US Patent 7,906,283 (Methods to Identify Patients at Risk of Developing Adverse Events During Treatment with Antidepressant Medication, Inventors: McMahon FJ, Laje G, Manji H, Rush AJ, Paddock S)., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: While there are several accepted screening measures for identifying those with a bipolar disorder, variations in overall classification rates argue for the pursuit of a more discriminating measure. Extant measures, as well as the DSM-5, rate each diagnostic criterion as having equivalent weighting values; an approach which may compromise diagnostic assignment if symptoms vary considerably in their diagnostic sensitivity. We therefore sought to develop a new measure and examine whether a weighted rating scale was superior to one assigning equivalent weightings to each item., Methods: An international sample of 165 bipolar patients and a comparison sample of 29 unipolar patients completed a measure assessing 96 putative manic/hypomanic symptoms. A previous machine learning analysis had identified the twenty most discriminating items. In this study, analysis was undertaken involving only the ten most discriminating items., Results: Whether items were scored as each having equivalent value or as weighted by their machine learning-generated values, classificatory accuracy was extremely high (in the order of 96%). Analyses also identified optimal cut-off scores. High classificatory accuracy was also obtained when scores for separate bipolar I and bipolar II groups were compared with scores from the unipolar group., Limitations: The sample consisted of comparatively few unipolar patients., Conclusions: The ten-item set allows a new measure for researchers to evaluate, while the items should assist clinician assessment as to whether a patient has a bipolar or unipolar mood disorder., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

There has been a longstanding debate as to whether the bipolar disorders differ categorically or dimensionally, with some dimensional or spectrum models including unipolar depressive disorders within a bipolar spectrum model. We analysed manic/hypomanic symptom data in samples of clinically diagnosed bipolar I, bipolar II and unipolar patients, employing latent class analyses to determine if separate classes could be identified. Mixture analyses were also undertaken to determine if a unimodal, bimodal or a trimodal pattern was present. For both a refined 15-item set and an extended 30-item set of manic/hypomanic symptoms, our latent class analyses favoured three-class solutions, while mixture analyses identified trimodal distributions of scores. Findings argue for a categorical distinction between unipolar and bipolar disorders, as well as between bipolar I and bipolar II disorders. Future research should aim to consolidate these results in larger samples, particularly given that the size of the unipolar group in this study was a salient limitation., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: This study aimed to improve the accuracy of bipolar disorder diagnoses by identifying symptoms that help to distinguish mania/hypomania in bipolar disorders from general 'happiness' in those with unipolar depression., Methods: An international sample of 165 bipolar and 29 unipolar depression patients (as diagnosed by their clinician) were recruited. All participants were required to rate a set of 96 symptoms with regards to whether they typified their experiences of manic/hypomanic states (for bipolar patients) or when they were 'happy' (unipolar patients). A machine learning paradigm (prediction rule ensembles; PREs) was used to derive rule ensembles that identified which of the 94 non-psychotic symptoms and their combinations best predicted clinically-allocated diagnoses., Results: The PREs were highly accurate at predicting clinician bipolar and unipolar diagnoses (92% and 91% respectively). A total of 20 items were identified from the analyses, which were all highly discriminating across the two conditions. When compared to a classificatory approach insensitive to the weightings of the items, the ensembles were of comparable accuracy in their discriminatory capacity despite the unbalanced sample. This illustrates the potential for PREs to supersede traditional classificatory approaches., Limitations: There were considerably less unipolar than bipolar patients in the sample, which limited the overall accuracy of the PREs., Conclusions: The consideration of symptoms outlined in this study should assist clinicians in distinguishing between bipolar and unipolar disorders. Future research will seek to further refine and validate these symptoms in a larger and more balanced sample., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: It is unclear whether the bipolar disorders (i.e. BP-I/BP-II) differ dimensionally or categorically. This study sought to clarify this issue., Methods: We recruited 165 patients, of which 69 and 96 had clinician-assigned diagnoses of BP-I and BP-II respectively. Their psychiatrists completed a data sheet seeking information on clinical variables about each patient, while the patients completed a different data sheet and scored a questionnaire assessing the prevalence and severity of 96 candidate manic/hypomanic symptoms., Results: We conducted a series of analyses examining a set (and two sub-sets) of fifteen symptoms that were significantly more likely to be reported by the clinically diagnosed BP-I patients. Latent class analyses favoured two-class solutions, while mixture analyses demonstrated bimodality, thus arguing for a BP-I/BP-II categorical distinction. Statistically defined BP-I class members were more likely when manic to have experienced psychotic features and over-valued ideas. They were also more likely to have been hospitalised, and to have been younger when they received their bipolar diagnosis and first experienced a depressive or manic episode., Limitations: The lack of agreement between some patients and managing clinicians in judging the presence of psychotic features could have compromised some analyses. It is also unclear whether some symptoms (e.g. grandiosity, noting mystical events) were capturing formal psychotic features or not., Conclusions: Findings replicate our earlier study in providing evidence to support the modelling of BP-I and BP-II as categorically discrete conditions. This should advance research into aetiological factors and determining optimal (presumably differing) treatments for the two conditions., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Objective: As limitations exist across DSM criteria sets for defining and differentiating the bipolar disorders generally and their component bipolar I (BP-1) and bipolar II (BP-II) sub-types, we sought to generate empirically based criteria., Method: We formed an international Task Force (TF) comprising members with bipolar disorder expertise, and who recruited 74 patients with a TF-diagnosed bipolar I and 104 with a bipolar II condition (with patients responding to definitional queries and symptom questionnaires), while 33 unipolar depressed patients recruited by the first author also completed the symptom questionnaire. A factor analysis sought to determine granular hypo/manic constructs., Results: The bipolar disorder subjects strongly affirmed a new general definition of a bipolar disorder (capturing both manic and hypomanic episodes). While DSM-5 requires impaired functioning, we established that a high percentage of individuals with a BP-I or a BP-II disorder reported improved functioning and therefore modified this criterion. Analyses identified syptoms with differential high rates in individuals with bipolar disorder and its sub-types (and thus not simply capturing happiness), while a factor analysis generated seven symptom constructs both linked with and differing from DSM-5 bipolar symptom criteria., Conclusion: This second-stage report details a new set of criteria for differentiating the bipolar disorders from unipolar depressive conditions, while arguing for BP-I and BP-II disorders being differentiated principally by the respective presence or absence of psychotic features. Future studies will evaluate whether further modifications are required and examine for differential treatment benefits for those with a BP-I versus a BP-II condition., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a noninvasive Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved treatment for unipolar treatment-resistant depression (TRD). rTMS has been utilized clinically to treat bipolar TRD; however, there remains a lack of evidence and support for effectively utilizing this intervention for bipolar TRD. We retrospectively analyzed data from a group of patients who were treated with rTMS for unipolar or bipolar TRD and describe a case example to further delineate management techniques for employing rTMS in the treatment of bipolar TRD., Methods: Records of 71 patients treated with rTMS for unipolar (n=54) or bipolar (n=17) TRD between 2008 and 2017 were reviewed. The primary outcome of depression severity, the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, was completed at baseline and after every 5 sessions throughout the course of 30 treatments. Secondary outcomes involved a comparison of outcomes and clinical characteristics within and between the bipolar and unipolar TRD groups., Results: In the total sample, patients' depression improved significantly over the course of treatment. Patients with bipolar TRD showed greater response and remission rates over the course of treatment compared with patients with unipolar TRD, but this difference was not statistically significant. Both groups showed a similar pattern of depression response over treatment time. No manic or hypomanic episodes occurred during any patient's course of rTMS treatment. A case example is provided discussing the timing of rTMS in a patient with bipolar depression to decrease the likelihood of treatment-induced hypomania., Limitations: Limitations included the small overall sample size, the smaller size of the patient group with bipolar TRD compared with the group with unipolar TRD, and the naturalistic setting of this study., Conclusions: Our data suggest that rTMS may be equally effective and safe for patients with both unipolar and bipolar depression. Patients with bipolar TRD showed a similar response profile over treatment time compared with patients with unipolar TRD.

A recent individual patient data meta-analysis showed that antidepressant medication is slightly more efficacious than cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in reducing overall depression severity in patients with a DSM-defined depressive disorder. We used an update of that dataset, based on seventeen randomized clinical trials, to examine the comparative efficacy of antidepressant medication vs. CBT in more detail by focusing on individual depressive symptoms as assessed with the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. Five symptoms (i.e., "depressed mood" , "feelings of guilt" , "suicidal thoughts" , "psychic anxiety" and "general somatic symptoms") showed larger improvements in the medication compared to the CBT condition (effect sizes ranging from .13 to .16), whereas no differences were found for the twelve other symptoms. In addition, network estimation techniques revealed that all effects, except that on "depressed mood" , were direct and could not be explained by any of the other direct or indirect treatment effects. Exploratory analyses showed that information about the symptom-specific efficacy could help in identifying those patients who, based on their pre-treatment symptomatology, are likely to benefit more from antidepressant medication than from CBT (effect size of .30) versus those for whom both treatments are likely to be equally efficacious. Overall, our symptom-oriented approach results in a more thorough evaluation of the efficacy of antidepressant medication over CBT and shows potential in "precision psychiatry" ., (© 2019 World Psychiatric Association.)

Background: Pain is a common co-morbidity among clinically depressed individuals. We investigated a group of patients who were treated with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treatment resistant depression (TRD) and who were assessed for severity of both depression and pain at baseline and throughout treatment., Methods: Records of 71 patients treated for TRD with rTMS from 2008 to 2017 were reviewed. Primary outcome measures including depression severity using the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS) and a 0-10 numeric pain rating scale were assessed at baseline and after every 5 sessions throughout the course of 30 treatments., Results: In the total sample, pain improved significantly over the course of treatment. Changes within subjects in QIDS were associated with the changes in pain (p = 0.011). TRD patients with higher pain scores at baseline tended to be older, experienced a longer duration of illness, and showed significant differences in QIDS over treatment time as compared with the low baseline pain group. Patients who had failed a serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) (venlafaxine or duloxetine) trial in the past had less pain at baseline and showed a group difference in pain scores at all time points, which was significant at treatments 20, 25 and 30, compared to patient groups who had never taken these medications or were currently taking these medications., Limitations: Limitations include the potential impact of the discomfort over the treatment site on the scalp, as it is unclear whether patients' assessment of pain included this side effect, and the lack of a control group due to the naturalistic design of this study., Conclusion: Our data show that pain and depression respond well to rTMS in a TRD population. Pain and depression severity in rTMS patients may be associated over the course of rTMS treatment time-points in individuals with higher levels of baseline pain., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To derive new criteria sets for defining manic and hypomanic episodes (and thus for defining the bipolar I and II disorders), an international Task Force was assembled and termed AREDOC reflecting its role of Assessment, Revision and Evaluation of DSM and other Operational Criteria. This paper reports on the first phase of its deliberations and interim criteria recommendations., Method: The first stage of the process consisted of reviewing Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition , and recent International Classification of Diseases criteria, identifying their limitations and generating modified criteria sets for further in-depth consideration. Task Force members responded to recommendations for modifying criteria and from these the most problematic issues were identified., Results: Principal issues focussed on by Task Force members were how best to differentiate mania and hypomania, how to judge 'impairment' (both in and of itself and allowing that functioning may sometimes improve during hypomanic episodes) and concern that rejecting some criteria (e.g. an imposed duration period) might risk false-positive diagnoses of the bipolar disorders., Conclusion: This first-stage report summarises the clinical opinions of international experts in the diagnosis and management of the bipolar disorders, allowing readers to contemplate diagnostic parameters that may influence their clinical decisions. The findings meaningfully inform subsequent Task Force stages (involving a further commentary stage followed by an empirical study) that are expected to generate improved symptom criteria for diagnosing the bipolar I and II disorders with greater precision and to clarify whether they differ dimensionally or categorically.

Background: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is efficacious for acute treatment of resistant major depressive disorder (MDD), but there is little information on maintenance TMS after acute response., Objective/hypothesis: This pilot feasibility study investigated 12-month outcomes comparing two maintenance TMS approaches--a scheduled, single TMS session delivered monthly (SCH) vs. observation only (OBS)., Methods: Antidepressant-free patients with unipolar, non-psychotic, treatment-resistant MDD participated in a randomized, open-label, multisite trial. Patients meeting protocol-defined criteria for improvement after six weeks of acute TMS were randomized to SCH or OBS regimens. TMS reintroduction was available for symptomatic worsening; all patients remained antidepressant-free during the trial., Results: Sixty-seven patients enrolled in the acute phase, and 49 (73%) met randomization criteria. Groups were matched, although more patients in the SCH group had failed ≥ 2 antidepressants (p = .035). There were no significant group differences on any outcome measure. SCH patients had nonsignificantly longer time to first TMS reintroduction, 91 ± 66 days, vs. OBS, 77 ± 52 days; OBS patients were nonsignificantly more likely to need reintroduction (odds ratio = 1.21, 95% CI .38-3.89). Reintroduction lasted 14.3 ± 17.8 days (SCH) and 16.9 ± 18.9 days (OBS); 14/18 (78%) SCH and 17/27 (63%) OBS responded to reintroduction. Sixteen patients (32.7%) completed all 53 weeks of the study., Conclusions: Maintaining treatment-resistant depressed patients off medications with periodic TMS appears feasible in some cases. There was no statistical advantage of SCH vs. OBS, although SCH was associated with a nonsignificantly longer time to relapse. Those who initially respond to TMS have a strong chance of re-responding if relapse occurs., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Early studies of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) have shown no adverse effects on neuropsychological function. However, further research using higher TMS intensities as well as a greater number of TMS pulses and with larger sample sizes is needed. We studied 68 patients with major depressive disorder who were randomized to receive either 15 sessions of sham or real TMS at 110% of the estimated prefrontal cortex threshold to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Each session consisted of 32 5-second trains of 10-Hz repetitive TMS at 110% adjusted motor threshold. A total of 24,000 pulses were given. Neuropsychological function was assessed before and immediately after TMS treatment with a battery of 8 tests. Using a higher TMS intensity as well as a greater number of pulses and having a larger sample size compared with most previous studies, this study found no negative neuropsychological effects of TMS. Changes in neuropsychological function were unrelated to changes in depression.

Objective: Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is an effective and safe acute treatment for patients not benefiting from antidepressant pharmacotherapy. Few studies have examined its longer term durability. This study assessed the long-term effectiveness of TMS in naturalistic clinical practice settings following acute treatment., Method: Adult patients with a primary diagnosis of unipolar, nonpsychotic major depressive disorder (DSM-IV clinical criteria), who did not benefit from antidepressant medication, received TMS treatment in 42 clinical practices. Two hundred fifty-seven patients completed a course of acute TMS treatment and consented to follow-up over 52 weeks. Assessments were obtained at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. The study was conducted between March 2010 and August 2012., Results: Compared with pre-TMS baseline, there was a statistically significant reduction in mean total scores on the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale (primary outcome), 9-Item Patient Health Questionnaire, and Inventory of Depressive Symptoms-Self Report (IDS-SR) at the end of acute treatment (all P < .0001), which was sustained throughout follow-up (all P < .0001). The proportion of patients who achieved remission at the conclusion of acute treatment remained similar at conclusion of the long-term follow-up. Among 120 patients who met IDS-SR response or remission criteria at the end of acute treatment, 75 (62.5%) continued to meet response criteria throughout long-term follow-up. After the first month, when the majority of acute TMS tapering was completed, 93 patients (36.2%) received reintroduction of TMS. In this group, the mean (SD) number of TMS treatment days was 16.2 (21.1)., Conclusions: TMS demonstrates a statistically and clinically meaningful durability of acute benefit over 12 months of follow-up. This was observed under a pragmatic regimen of continuation antidepressant medication and access to TMS retreatment for symptom recurrence., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01114477., (© Copyright 2014 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)

Treatment-resistant depression is a common problem encountered by psychiatrists. These patients are often difficult to treat effectively. Strategies for addressing patients with treatment-resistant depression include changing medications, adding another antidepressant (antidepressant polypharmacy), and augmenting treatment with a non-antidepressant.

Background: Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is an effective and safe therapy for major depressive disorder (MDD). This study assessed quality of life (QOL) and functional status outcomes for depressed patients after an acute course of TMS., Methods: Forty-two, U.S.-based, clinical TMS practice sites treated 307 outpatients with a primary diagnosis of MDD and persistent symptoms despite prior adequate antidepressant pharmacotherapy. Treatment parameters were based on individual clinical considerations and followed the labeled procedures for use of the approved TMS device. Patient self-reported QOL outcomes included change in the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) and the EuroQol 5-Dimensions (EQ-5D) ratings from baseline to end of the acute treatment phase., Results: Statistically significant improvement in functional status on a broad range of mental health and physical health domains was observed on the SF-36 following acute TMS treatment. Similarly, statistically significant improvement in patient-reported QOL was observed on all domains of the EQ-5D and on the General Health Perception and Health Index scores. Improvement on these measures was observed across the entire range of baseline depression symptom severity., Conclusion: These data confirm that TMS is effective in the acute treatment of MDD in routine clinical practice settings. This symptom benefit is accompanied by statistically and clinically meaningful improvements in patient-reported QOL and functional status outcomes.

Background: Major depressive disorder is a prevalent, disabling, and often chronic or recurrent psychiatric condition. About 35% of patients fail to respond to conventional treatment approaches and are considered to have treatment-resistant depression (TRD)., Objective: We compared the safety and effectiveness of different stimulation levels of adjunctive vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) therapy for the treatment of TRD., Methods: In a multicenter, double blind study, 331 patients with TRD were randomized to one of three dose groups: LOW (0.25 mA current, 130 μs pulse width), MEDIUM (0.5-1.0 mA, 250 μs), or HIGH (1.25-1.5 mA, 250 μs). A highly treatment-resistant population (>97% had failed to respond to ≥6 previous treatments) was enrolled. Response and adverse effects were assessed for 22 weeks (end of acute phase), after which output current could be increased, if clinically warranted. Assessments then continued until Week 50 (end of long-term phase)., Results: VNS therapy was well tolerated. During the acute phase, all groups showed statistically significant improvement on the primary efficacy endpoint (change in Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Clinician Administered Version [IDS-C]), but not for any between-treatment group comparisons. In the long-term phase, mean change in IDS-C scores showed continued improvement. Post-hoc analyses demonstrated a statistically significant correlation between total charge delivered per day and decreasing depressive symptoms; and analysis of acute phase responders demonstrated significantly greater durability of response at MEDIUM and HIGH doses than at the LOW dose., Conclusions: TRD patients who received adjunctive VNS showed significant improvement at study endpoint compared with baseline, and the effect was durable over 1 year. Higher electrical dose parameters were associated with response durability., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The incidence of treatment-emergent sexual dysfunction in the acute and continuation phases of the prevention of recurrent episodes of depression with venlafaxine ER for two years (PREVENT) study was assessed. Adult outpatients with recurrent major depressive disorder were randomly assigned to receive venlafaxine extended release (ER; 75-300 mg/day) or fluoxetine (20-60 mg/day). Sexual dysfunction was assessed using items from the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D(17)) and the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report (IDS-SR). The baseline rates of sexual dysfunction based on the HAM-D(17) and IDS-SR items were 57.9% and 48.8%, respectively. The rates of new-onset sexual dysfunction for the venlafaxine ER-treated (44.8%, HAM-D(17); 38.4%, IDS-SR) and fluoxetine-treated patients (52.9%, HAM-D(17); 50.0%, IDS-SR) were similar; approximately 80% of the cases resolved during treatment. Treatment response was associated with lower rates of new-onset sexual dysfunction compared with nonresponse. The patients who remitted were the least likely to experience sexual dysfunction during antidepressant treatment.

Background: Major depressive disease (MDD) represents a cost burden to the US healthcare system: approximately one-third of MDD patients fail conventional treatment: multiple failures define treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) therapy is an approved adjunctive treatment for TRD., Objective: To study the healthcare utilization experience of Medicare beneficiaries implanted with VNS (VNSBs) during Medicare coverage, compared with beneficiaries with TRD (TRDBs) and managed depression (Mdeps)., Methods: A retrospective analysis of 100% standard analytic file (SAF) Medicare claims from 2006-2009 using specific criteria to identify a VNSB dataset, compared to TRDs and Mdeps datasets (extract of 5% sample SAF from 2001-2009) and 2009 general Medicare beneficiaries (GMBs). Comparative analysis included demographics, mortality, healthcare utilization, and costs., Results: Among patients meeting study criteria for VNSBs (n = 690), TRDBs (n = 4639), Mdeps (n = 7524), and GMBs (n > 36 million), VNSBs were on average: younger, more likely to be female, and white, with Medicare eligibility due to disability. Of the VNSBs in the 2-year post-implantation period: 5% died; 22% experienced no negative events (defined as hospitalizations for psychoses or poisoning, emergency room use, electroconvulsive therapy, or poisoning, suicidal ideation, or self-harm diagnoses); 29% experienced multiple negative events; and 41% had either a single hospitalization or only all-cause ER visits. VNSBs experiencing negative events had more complex co-occurring psychiatric diagnoses. The annual mortality rate for VNSBs post-implant was 19.9 deaths per 1000 patient years, compared with 46.2 (CI: 41.9-51.6) and 46.8 (CI: 43.4-50.4) deaths for TRDBs and Mdeps, respectively. The medical costs per patient-year post-VNS implantation for VNSBs ($8749) was similar to the Mdeps ($8960; CI $8555-$9381) and was substantially lower than TRDBs ($13,618; CI $12,937-$14,342)., Conclusions: VNSBs achieving positive health outcomes (measured by lack of negative events post-implantation) tend to have fewer psychiatric co-occurring conditions. Lowered costs post-implantation with evidence of response to VNS suggest the therapy represents an option for carefully screened TRDBs who have failed other therapies., Limitations: Administrative data are missing pharmaceuticals and clinical measures. Data for the VNS population were not available pre-implantation for comparison to post-implantation experience. Cost comparisons are adjusted for missing costs in the VNS dataset.

Objective: To determine whether switching within or between antidepressant therapy (ADT) classes prior to the use of adjunctive antipsychotic treatment is associated with different outcomes in major depressive disorder (MDD)., Method: This was a post hoc analysis of pooled data from 3 similar, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled registrational studies of aripiprazole adjunctive to ADT conducted between September 2004 and April 2008. The trials comprised the following 3 phases: a 7- to 28-day screening phase, an 8-week single-blind prospective treatment phase, and a 6-week double-blind, randomized phase. Patients were aged 18-65 years and met DSM-IV-TR criteria for MDD. Patients with an inadequate response to ADT during the screening phase entered the prospective treatment phase, during which they were switched to another ADT medication of either the same or a different class. Those patients with an inadequate response were then randomized to double-blind adjunctive aripiprazole or adjunctive placebo and followed for 6 weeks., Results: Mean improvement in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score was significantly greater with adjunctive aripiprazole versus adjunctive placebo for both between-class (-9.2 vs -6.2, P < .001) and within-class (-9.8 vs -6.6, P < .001) switch groups. Relative risks for response were 1.6 (95% CI = 1.3-2.1) for those who switched between classes and 1.7 (95% CI = 1.2-2.2) for those who switched within class., Conclusions: Augmentation with aripiprazole, after either a between-class or within-class switch following initial ADT failure, is an effective option for patients with nonresponsive MDD. In contrast to current strategies employed in clinical practice, these results suggest that adjunctive aripiprazole is a logical strategy in patients unresponsive to ADT., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT00105196, NCT00095758, NCT00095823.

Preclinical studies suggest that lithium may exert neurotrophic effects that counteract pathological processes in the brain of patients with bipolar disorder (BD). To describe and compare the course and magnitude of gray matter volume changes in patients with BD who are treated with lithium or valproic acid (VPA) compared to healthy comparison subjects, and to assess clinical relationships to gray matter volume changes induced by lithium in patients with BD, we conducted longitudinal brain imaging and clinical evaluations of treatment response in 22 mood-stabilizing and antipsychotic medications-naive patients with BD who were randomly assigned to either lithium or VPA treatment after baseline assessment. Fourteen healthy comparison subjects did not take any psychotropic medications during follow-up. Longitudinal data analyses of 93 serial magnetic resonance images revealed lithium-induced increases in gray matter volume, which peaked at week 10-12 and were maintained through 16 weeks of treatment. This increase was associated with positive clinical response. In contrast, VPA-treated patients with BD or healthy comparison subjects did not show gray matter volume changes over time. Results suggest that lithium induces sustained increases in cerebral gray matter volume in patients with BD and that these changes are related to the therapeutic efficacy of lithium.

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (OFC) compared with lamotrigine (Lam) for long-term treatment of bipolar I depression, this 25-wk, randomized, double-blind study compared OFC (6/25, 6/50, 12/25, or 12/50 mg/d, n=205) with Lam titrated to 200 mg/d (n=205) in patients with bipolar I disorder, depressed. A protocol-specified analysis of 7-wk outcomes was previously reported. Outcome measures included Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) (primary), Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), and Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) scores. OFC-treated patients had significantly greater improvement than Lam-treated patients over 25 wk on CGI-S (p=0.008), MADRS (p=0.005), and YMRS (p<0.001) scores, and from baseline across visits from week 5 (titration complete) to the end of the study on CGI-S (p=0.043), MADRS (p=0.017), and YMRS (p=0.001) scores. Of patients in remission after the 7-wk acute phase, there was no significant difference between treatment groups in the incidence of relapse (MADRS >15, p=0.528). Rate of treatment-emergent mania was not significantly different by treatment (p=0.401). OFC-treated patients had more frequent (p<0.05) somnolence, increased appetite, dry mouth, sedation, weight gain, and tremor; Lam-treated patients had more frequent insomnia. There was a significant difference in incidence of treatment-emergent cholesterol > or = 240 (p<0.001) and in weight gain of > or = 7% (p<0.001) in favour of the Lam group. Patients with bipolar I depression had significantly greater symptom improvement over 25 wk on OFC compared with Lam. There was no treatment difference in incidence of relapse. OFC-treated patients had more treatment-emergent adverse events and greater incidence of weight gain and hypercholesterolaemia.

Objective: The aim of this post hoc analysis was to examine whether tachyphylaxis occurs after repeated courses of antidepressant drug therapy., Method: 276 patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) were treated with sertraline (150-200 mg daily) for 8 weeks. Patients with persistent MDD after sertraline therapy were randomized to continuation therapy with either sertraline plus atomoxetine (n = 72) or sertraline plus placebo (n = 74) for 8 additional weeks. Logistic regression was used to test the hypothesis that an increase in prior antidepressant drug exposure is associated with a reduced responsiveness to sertraline therapy., Results: The number of prior antidepressant drug exposures was negatively associated with response to initial sertraline therapy (odds ratio = 0.81, p = 0.0035). The odds ratio indicates a 19.9% reduced likelihood of response with each prior antidepressant treatment trial. In contrast, the number of prior antidepressant treatment trials was not associated with response to continuation sertraline plus atomoxetine or sertraline plus placebo therapy., Conclusion: This observation supports the hypothesis that tachyphylaxis may develop after repeated antidepressant drug trials., (Copyright 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: Antidepressant tachyphylaxis describes the return of apathetic depressive symptoms, such as fatigue and decreased motivation, despite continued use of a previously effective treatment., Methods: Data were collected from a multiphase, doubleblind, placebo-controlled study that assessed the efficacy of venlafaxine extended release (ER) during 2 sequential 1-year maintenance phases (A and B) in patients with recurrent major depressive disorder (MDD). The primary outcome was the cumulative probability of tachyphylaxis in patients receiving venlafaxine ER, fluoxetine, or placebo. Tachyphylaxis was defined as Rothschild Scale for Antidepressant Tachyphylaxis (RSAT) score

Background: Psychosis has been identified in as many as 68% of patients with bipolar mania. This analysis identified psychotic symptoms in these patients., Methods: Data were from two placebo-controlled, 3-week studies in patients with an acute episode of bipolar mania. Symptoms were identified by the 30-item Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS; item ratings, 1 = absent to 7 = extremely severe), the Young Mania Rating Scale, and the Global Assessment Scale., Results: Psychotic features at study entry were diagnosed in 264 (51.3%) of the 515 patients. At baseline, these patients had significantly more severe scores on the PANSS, Young Mania Rating Scale, and Global Assessment Scale than patients without psychotic features. Patients with psychotic features had mean (+/-SD) scores of mild (3) or greater on six PANSS items: grandiosity (4.5+/-1.4), delusions (4.4+/-1.4), lack of judgment/insight (4.1+/-1.5), excitement (3.9+/-1.3), suspiciousness/persecution (3.1+/-1.6), and hostility (3.1+/-1.5). Grandiosity symptoms of delusional proportions (scores > or = 4) were noted in 205 (78%) of patients with a diagnosis of psychotic features and in 113 (45%) patients without the diagnosis., Limitations: The study was not specifically designed to assess patients with psychotic features and the PANSS was developed to evaluate symptoms of schizophrenia., Conclusions: These findings support prior reports indicating high rates of psychosis in patients with bipolar mania and identify the most prominent symptoms in these patients.

Objective: To compare efficacy of remaining on duloxetine 60 mg to increasing to 120 mg q.d. in patients without remission of major depressive disorder (MDD) after 6 weeks at 60 mg., Method: This double-blind, parallel study was conducted in adults with MDD (DSM-IV-TR criteria). Patients initially randomly assigned to duloxetine 60 mg for 6 weeks with a 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-17) score > 7 (nonremitters) were randomly reassigned to 60 mg or 120 mg duloxetine for 8 weeks. Patients with a HAM-D-17 score < or =7 (remitters) continued on duloxetine 60 mg. The primary objective was to compare time to remission (HAM-D-17 score < or =7) between rerandomized groups. Secondary objectives included evaluation of HAM-D-17 and Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology assessments and safety and tolerability evaluations in nonremitters and remitters. Patients were enrolled from November 2004 to January 2006., Results: Nonremitters randomly reassigned to 60 mg and 120 mg achieved similar time to remission and similar improvements on efficacy measures. Remission was achieved in 30.0% and 30.5% in the 60-mg and 120-mg groups, respectively. Of the remitters, 85.5% continued to be in remission at study end. Other than a greater incidence of hyperhidrosis and chest pain in the 120-mg group, adverse events were similar between groups, as were discontinuations due to adverse events., Conclusion: Nonremitters to 60 mg of duloxetine for 6 weeks randomly reassigned to 60 mg or 120 mg of duloxetine demonstrated continued symptom improvement in the 8-week extension. Patients randomly reassigned to 120 mg showed no advantage over those who continued on 60 mg. Duloxetine was well tolerated at both doses and had similar safety profiles., (Copyright 2008 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)

This study followed treatment responders from a randomized controlled trial of adults with major depression. Patients treated with medication but withdrawn onto pill-placebo had more relapse through 1 year of follow-up compared to patients who received prior behavioral activation, prior cognitive therapy, or continued medication. Prior psychotherapy was also superior to medication withdrawal in the prevention of recurrence across the 2nd year of follow-up. Specific comparisons indicated that patients previously exposed to cognitive therapy were significantly less likely to relapse following treatment termination than patients withdrawn from medication, and patients previously exposed to behavioral activation did almost as well relative to patients withdrawn from medication, although the difference was not significantly different. Differences between behavioral activation and cognitive therapy were small in magnitude and not significantly different across the full 2-year follow-up, and each therapy was at least as efficacious as the continuation of medication. These findings suggest that behavioral activation may be nearly as enduring as cognitive therapy and that both psychotherapies are less expensive and longer lasting alternatives to medication in the treatment of depression., ((c) 2008 APA, all rights reserved)

Objectives: This paper reviews the literature to examine the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for rapid cycling in bipolar disorder., Methods: Studies on the clinical characteristics of rapid cycling bipolar disorder were reviewed. To identify relevant papers, literature searches using PubMed and MEDLINE were undertaken., Results: First observed in the prepharmacologic era, rapid cycling subsequently has been associated with a relatively poor response to pharmacologic treatment. Rapid cycling can be conceptualized as either a high frequency of episodes of any polarity or as a temporal sequence of episodes of opposite polarity. The DSM-IV defines rapid cycling as a course specifier, signifying at least four episodes of major depression, mania, mixed mania, or hypomania in the past year, occurring in any combination or order. It is estimated that rapid cycling is present in about 12-24% of patients at specialized mood disorder clinics. However, apart from episode frequency, studies over the past 30 years have been unable to determine clinical characteristics that define patients with rapid cycling as a specific subgroup. Furthermore, rapid cycling is a transient phenomenon in many patients., Conclusions: While a dimensional approach to episode frequency as a continuum between the extremes of no cycling and continuous cycling may be more appropriate and provide a framework to include ultra-rapid and ultradian cycling, the evidence does not exist today to refine the DSM-IV definition in a less arbitrary manner. Continued use of the DSM-IV definition also enables comparisons between past and future studies, and it should be included in the next release of the ICD. Further scientific investigation into rapid cycling is needed. In addition to improving the diagnostic criteria, insight into neurophysiologic mechanisms of mood switching and episode frequency may have important implications for clinical care.

High rates of anxiety disorders have been reported in bipolar disorders. We undertook this study to determine the impact of anxiety disorders on bipolar disorders in our tertiary care referral center. We reviewed the literature on this topic and also reviewed records of 44 treatment resistant bipolar patients evaluated by DLD at the Center for Anxiety and Depression. Twenty-three patients had comorbid panic disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, or obsessive-compulsive disorder. We compared bipolar patients with and without a history of comorbid anxiety disorders regarding several clinical factors, including mean age, percentage of women, mean age of onset, history of suicide attempts, history of rapid cycling, history of substance abuse, family history, and mean ratings for mood rating scales. Statistical differences were assessed by chi(2) and t-tests. On several measures, bipolar patients with comorbid anxiety disorders were more significantly ill than bipolar patients without comorbid anxiety disorders. For instance, patients with an anxiety disorder were more likely to have an earlier age of onset of illness, have higher (worse) ratings on the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Beck Depression Inventory, and lower (more impaired) ratings on the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale. Comorbid anxiety disorders were also associated with a more frequent history of substance abuse and higher ratings for suicidal ideation. Anxiety disorders negatively impact the course of bipolar disorders. The high prevalence and risk rate of comorbid anxiety disorders in bipolar patients highlight the need for greater clinical attention to this population., ((c) 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.)

To examine the long-term safety, tolerability, and effectiveness of duloxetine in the treatment of major depressive disorder in a naturalistic study design meant to mimic clinical practice. Data were from the long-term, open-label, extension phase that followed a 12-week acute-treatment, multicenter study of adult outpatients with major depressive disorder. After the first week of the acute phase, all patients were treated with at least 60 mg daily duloxetine, which could be titrated to a maximum dose of 120 mg daily. Outcome measures were collected at monthly visits and included spontaneously reported adverse events, weight, vital signs, and the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating scale. Seventy-two of the 177 (40.7%) patients who entered the extension phase of this study completed the study. The mean duration of participation in the extension was 305 days, with total exposure ranging from 68 to 707 days. Of the 177 patients who entered the extension, only 12 or 13 (7.0%) showed clinically significant worsening of depression that led to study discontinuation. The mean 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating scale score remained below 7 throughout the extension. A total of 21/177 patients (11.9%) discontinued due to adverse events during extension treatment. The adverse events causing discontinuation during the extension, with the exception of weight gain, were generally not unique to the extension phase, with 11/21 patients (52.0%) discontinuing due to adverse events that were first reported during acute treatment. Weight gain was reported as a reason for discontinuation during extension treatment in 4/177 (2.3%) patients. In this open-label study, efficacy was maintained for most patients. The adverse events causing discontinuation during the extension phase were generally not unique to the extension phase. Few patients experienced significant weight gain., ((c) 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.)

Background: We evaluated the comparative efficacy and safety of venlafaxine extended release (ER) and fluoxetine in the acute and continuation phases of treatment., Methods: In this multicenter, double-blind study, outpatients with recurrent unipolar major depression were randomly assigned to receive venlafaxine ER (75-300 mg/day; n = 821) or fluoxetine (20-60 mg/day; n = 275). After a 10-week acute treatment phase, responders entered a 6-month continuation phase of ongoing therapy with double-blind venlafaxine ER (n = 530) or fluoxetine (n = 185). In the acute phase, the primary outcome was response, defined as a 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) score < or =12 or > or =50% decrease from baseline; the secondary outcome was remission, defined as a HDRS score < or =7. In the continuation phase, the primary outcome was the proportion of patients who sustained response or remission. Secondary measures included time to onset of sustained response or remission (i.e., meeting criteria at two or more consecutive visits), relapse rates, and quality-of-life measures., Results: At the acute treatment phase end point, response rates were 79% for both venlafaxine ER and fluoxetine; remission rates were 49% and 50% for venlafaxine ER and fluoxetine, respectively. In the continuation phase, response rates were 90% and 92%, and remission rates were 72% and 69% for venlafaxine ER and fluoxetine, respectively. Rates of sustained remission at the end of the continuation phase were 52% and 58% for venlafaxine ER and fluoxetine, respectively., Conclusion: Venlafaxine ER and fluoxetine were comparably effective during both acute and continuation phase therapy.