Search

Demoralization, characterized by a persistent inability to cope, as well as helplessness, hopelessness, and despair, is highly prevalent in oncology, with between 36% to 52% of patients exhibiting demoralization syndrome. Given established evidence linking demoralization in patients with cancer to physical symptom burden, quality of life, sleep disturbance, and suicidality, assessment and treatment of demoralization syndrome is critical for optimizing clinical and psychosocial outcomes. The term "demoralization" is highly relevant to the care of patients with cancer facing life-limiting illnesses. Indeed, demoralization can be conceptualized as a feeling state characterized by the perception of being unable to cope with some pressing problems and/or of lack of adequate support from others. Despite a considerable overlap in symptoms, demoralization and depression should be regarded as distinct and independent clinical syndromes. Patients who are demoralized but not clinically depressed often describe a sense of subjective incompetence and do not report anhedonia (i.e., loss of interest and inability to enjoy things). Although the definition of demoralization is now included as a distinct syndrome in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-11, it has been neglected by the current U.S. official nosology in psychiatry, such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). As such, demoralization syndrome may be under- or misdiagnosed and treated ineffectively in the oncology setting, potentially prolonging suffering and influencing cancer outcomes. Optimization of methods to diagnose and assess demoralization syndrome is critical to underpin rigorous studies evaluating the efficacy of psychotherapeutic and pharmacological interventions for patients with cancer experiencing demoralization. Our review supports the use of specific diagnostic criteria for demoralization in cancer patients, introduces methodological considerations relevant to treatment studies, and presents a novel measurement approach to the assessment of demoralization severity with the Clinical Interview for Demoralization (CIDE). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This review article presents select recent studies that form the basis for the development of esmethadone into a potential new drug. Esmethadone is a promising member of the pharmacological class of uncompetitive N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) antagonists that have shown efficacy for major depressive disorder (MDD) and other diseases and disorders, such as Alzheimer's dementia and pseudobulbar affect. The other drugs in the novel class of NMDAR antagonists with therapeutic uses that are discussed for comparative purposes in this review are esketamine, ketamine, dextromethorphan, and memantine. We present in silico, in vitro, in vivo, and clinical data for esmethadone and other uncompetitive NMDAR antagonists that may advance our understanding of the role of these receptors in neural plasticity in health and disease. The efficacy of NMDAR antagonists as rapid antidepressants may advance our understanding of the neurobiology of MDD and other neuropsychiatric diseases and disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of REL-1017 (esmethadone), a novel N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) channel blocker, in patients with major depressive disorder who failed to benefit from one to three standard antidepressant treatments in their current major depressive episode. Methods: A 7-day phase 2 multicenter randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial, comprising three arms, was conducted to assess the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of two dosages of REL-1017 (25 mg or 50 mg orally once a day). Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to placebo (N=22), REL-1017 25 mg/day (N=19), or REL-1017 50 mg/day (N=21). Safety scales included the 4-item Positive Symptom Rating Scale for psychotomimetic symptoms, the Clinician-Administered Dissociative States Scale for dissociative symptoms, the Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale for withdrawal signs and symptoms, and the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale for suicidality. The primary efficacy endpoint was the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Scale (MADRS) score. All 62 randomly assigned patients were included in the full analysis set population analysis. Results: Patients experienced mild or moderate transient adverse events and no evidence of dissociative or psychotomimetic effects, opioid effects, or withdrawal signs and symptoms. The improvement in MADRS score shown on day 4 in both of the REL-1017 dosage groups was sustained through day 7 (last dose) and day 14 (7 days after the last dose), with effect sizes from 0.7 to 1.0. Conclusions: This trial showed favorable safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic profiles and suggests that REL-1017 may have rapid and sustained antidepressant effects compared with placebo in patients with inadequate responses to antidepressant treatments. These results will need confirmation in larger and longer trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Background: This report evaluates whether anger attacks (sudden uncharacteristic bouts of anger that are associated with autonomic arousal and/or aggression) in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) are associated with elevated suicidal ideation (SI; active suicidal thoughts and plans).Methods: Participants of Establishing Moderators and Biosignatures of Antidepressant Response in Clinical Care (EMBARC) study who completed Massachusetts General Hospital Anger Attack Questionnaire (AAQ) at baseline were included (n = 293). Levels of SI (suicidal thoughts factor of Concise Health Risk Tracking) were compared at baseline with generalized linear models, and during Stage 1 (baseline-to-week-8) and Stage 2 (week-8-to-week-16) with repeated-measures mixed model analyses. Covariates included age, sex, race, ethnicity, site, and treatment arm.Results: At baseline, participants with (n = 109) versus without anger attacks (n = 184) had higher levels of SI (Cohen's d effect size [d] = 1.20). Those with ≥9 anger attacks in the past month had significantly higher SI than those with 1-2 (d = 1.21), 3-4 (d = 1.48), and 5-8 (d = 0.94) anger attacks in the past month. Furthermore, participants with anger attacks at baseline reported higher SI at each post-baseline visit (both Stages 1 and 2) of EMBARC study (d = 0.39-0.77; all p < .05). Associations between anger attacks and SI were significant even after controlling for irritability, hostility, anxious arousal, depression, suicide propensity, and self-reported pain at baseline and lifetime suicidal tendencies. Similar results were found in participants with aggressive behaviors.Conclusion: Anger attacks in outpatients with MDD may be associated with chronically elevated SI.   Clinical Trials Registration: Establishing Moderators and Biosignatures of Antidepressant Response for Clinical Care for Depression (EMBARC); NCT01407094; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01407094. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Up to 15% of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) attempt suicide and up to 2% complete suicide. This was a post-hoc analysis aimed to evaluate the risk of suicide ideation and behavior associated with adjunctive pimavanserin treatment in adults with MDD.Methods: CLARITY was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in patients with MDD and an inadequate response to a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI). For this post-hoc analysis, the primary endpoint was mean change from baseline for HAMD item 3 (suicide). The incidence of suicidal ideation or behavior was also assessed from the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) and reports of adverse events.Results: During Stage 1, LS mean change for HAMD Item 3 was reduced from baseline at each week with pimavanserin with a significant difference between pimavanserin and placebo at Week 3 (p=0.012, effect size: 0.431). At any post-baseline assessment, suicidal ideation on the C-SSRS was reported in 28 (18.1%) of patients with placebo and 9 (17.3%) with pimavanserin during Stage 1 and in 7 (20.7%) with placebo and 4 (13.8%) with pimavanserin during Stage 2. No events of suicidal behavior were observed with either placebo or pimavanserin.Limitations: The post hoc nature, exclusion of patients with any history of suicide from the primary study, and the small number of patients who demonstrated evidence of suicidal ideation.Conclusions: Adjunctive pimavanserin was not associated with an increase in suicidal ideation in patients with MDD. Further study is needed to verify these results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Sexual dysfunction is common among patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). In the CLARITY study, the safety and efficacy of adjunctive pimavanserin, an inverse agonist at 5-HT2A receptors, were demonstrated when added to existing treatment for MDD. This analysis provides a detailed assessment of the effects of pimavanserin on sexual function from the CLARITY study.Methods: Patients with a diagnosis of MDD in a depressive episode, inadequate response to ongoing antidepressant therapy, and a Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score >20 were randomized to pimavanserin 34 mg/day or placebo added to ongoing treatment with an immediate revision of all selective serotonin or serotonin-norepinephrine for 5 weeks (Stage 1), and nonresponders (<50% improvement from baseline in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HAMD-17]) were re-randomized for an additional 5 week (Stage 2). Effects of pimavanserin on the Massachusetts General Hospital Sexual Functioning Index (MGH-SFI) and HAMD-17 Item 14 (sexual interest) were examined.Results: Among 203 patients (51 on pimavanserin; 152 on placebo), pimavanserin demonstrated significant improvement from baseline to Week 5 on the MGH-SFI (least square [LS]mean difference -0.634, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-0.964, -0.304]; p = .0002; effect size [ES], Cohen's d: .614). Across Stages 1 and 2, the weighted LSmean difference was -0.468 (95% CI [-0.720, -0.216]; p = .0003) for pimavanserin versus placebo. Mean changes from baseline to Week 5 for MGH-SFI Items 1, 2, 3, and 5 and HAMD Item 14 were significantly (p < .05) greater with pimavanserin versus placebo.Conclusions: Adjunctive pimavanserin improved sexual function in patients with MDD. Adding pimavanserin to ongoing treatment for MDD may be especially useful for patients experiencing sexual dysfunction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To examine the rate and time to relapse for remitters and responders to ketamine in treatment-resistant depression (TRD).Methods: Subjects with TRD were randomized to a single infusion of one of several doses of intravenous ketamine, or midazolam. Using Kaplan-Meier survival function, the current report examines the rate and time to relapse, defined as MADRS ≥ 22, over a period of 30 days, in subjects who achieved remission (MADRS ≤ 10) or response (≥ 50% reduction in MADRS) on day three post-infusion of intravenous ketamine 0.1, 0.5, or 1.0 mg/kg.Results: Of the 60 randomized participants who received a single ketamine (0.1, 0.5, or 1.0 mg/kg) infusion, 19 (34%) met criteria for remission and 27 (48%) for response, on day 3 post-infusion. A numerical dose-response relationship was observed, with remitters/responders on ketamine 1.0 mg/kg having the lowest relapse rate, followed by ketamine 0.5 mg/kg and 0.1 mg/kg, respectively (% of remitters who relapsed by day 14: 38% with 1.0 mg/kg, 50% with 0.5 mg/kg, 100% with 0.1 mg/kg;% of responders who relapsed by day 14: 30% with 1.0 mg/kg, 50% with 0.5 mg/kg, 80% with 0.1 mg/kg).Limitations: The sample size was small. No MADRS measurements at day one post-infusion. The study was not powered to assess differences in relapse prevention between different doses of ketamine.Conclusion: Time to relapse after successful treatment with a single infusion of ketamine appears to follow a dose-response relationship, where higher dosage leads to increased time to relapse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To examine the effect of high baseline anxiety on response to ketamine versus midazolam (active placebo) in treatment-resistant depression (TRD).Methods: In a multisite, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 99 subjects with TRD were randomized to one of five arms: a single dose of intravenous ketamine 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1.0 mg/kg, or midazolam 0.045 mg/kg. The primary outcome measure was change in the six-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD6). A linear mixed effects model was used to examine the effect of anxious depression baseline status (defined by a Hamilton Depression Rating Scale Anxiety-Somatization score ≥7) on response to ketamine versus midazolam at 1 and 3 days postinfusion.Results: N = 45 subjects had anxious TRD, compared to N = 54 subjects without high anxiety at baseline. No statistically significant interaction effect was found between treatment group assignment (combined ketamine treatment groups versus midazolam) and anxious/nonanxious status on HAMD6 score at either days 1 or 3 postinfusion (Day 1: F(1, 84) = 0.02, P = 0.88; Day 3: F(1, 82) = 0.12, P = 0.73).Conclusion: In contrast with what is observed with traditional antidepressants, response to ketamine may be similar in both anxious and nonanxious TRD subjects. These pilot results suggest the potential utility of ketamine in the treatment of anxious TRD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The authors sought to test the efficacy of adjunctive ziprasidone in adults with nonpsychotic unipolar major depression experiencing persistent symptoms after 8 weeks of open-label treatment with escitalopram.Method: This was an 8-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial conducted at three academic medical centers. Participants were 139 outpatients with persistent symptoms of major depression after an 8-week open-label trial of escitalopram (phase 1), randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive adjunctive ziprasidone (escitalopram plus ziprasidone, N=71) or adjunctive placebo (escitalopram plus placebo, N=68), with 8 weekly follow-up assessments. The primary outcome measure was clinical response, defined as a reduction of at least 50% in score on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D). The Hamilton Anxiety Rating scale (HAM-A) and Visual Analog Scale for Pain were defined a priori as key secondary outcome measures.Results: Rates of clinical response (35.2% compared with 20.5%) and mean improvement in HAM-D total scores (-6.4 [SD=6.4] compared with -3.3 [SD=6.2]) were significantly greater for the escitalopram plus ziprasidone group. Several secondary measures of antidepressant efficacy also favored adjunctive ziprasidone. The escitalopram plus ziprasidone group also showed significantly greater improvement on HAM-A score but not on Visual Analog Scale for Pain score. Ten (14%) patients in the escitalopram plus ziprasidone group discontinued treatment because of intolerance, compared with none in the escitalopram plus placebo group.Conclusions: Ziprasidone as an adjunct to escitalopram demonstrated antidepressant efficacy in adult patients with major depressive disorder experiencing persistent symptoms after 8 weeks of open-label treatment with escitalopram. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Major depressive disorder is often accompanied by elevated levels of anger, hostility, and irritability, which may contribute to worse outcomes. The present study is a secondary analysis examining the role of anger/hostility in the treatment response to low-dose aripiprazole added to antidepressant therapy in 225 patients with major depressive disorder and inadequate response to antidepressant treatment. Repeated-measures model demonstrated no drug-placebo difference in treatment response across levels of anger/hostility. However, within-group analyses showed significantly lower placebo response rates in patients with high anger/hostility and a trend for lower drug response rates in patients with high anger/hostility. Pooled response rates across phases and treatments revealed a lower response rate among patients with high anger/hostility. Depressed patients with high anger/hostility demonstrate greater illness severity and lower depressive treatment response rates than patients with low anger/hostility, suggesting that patients with high anger/hostility may have poorer outcomes in response to adjunctive treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background There is growing research interest in studying motivational deficits in different neuropsychiatric disorders because these symptoms appear to be more common than originally reported and negatively impact long-term functional outcomes. However, there is considerable ambiguity in the terminology used to describe motivational deficits in the scientific literature. For the purposes of this manuscript, the term "amotivation" will be utilised in the context of mood disorders, since this is considered a more inclusive/appropriate term for this patient population. Other challenges impacting the study of amotivation in mood disorders, include: appropriate patient population selection; managing or controlling for potential confounding factors; the lack of gold-standard diagnostic criteria and assessment scales; and determination of the most appropriate study duration. Methods This paper summarises the search for a consensus by a group of experts in the optimal approach to studying amotivation in mood disorders. Results The consensus of this group is that amotivation in mood disorders is a legitimate therapeutic target, given the magnitude of the associated unmet needs, and that proof-of-concept studies should be conducted in order to facilitate subsequent larger investigations. The focus of this manuscript is to consider the study of amotivation, as a residual symptom of major depressive disorder (MDD) or bipolar depression (BD), following adequate treatment with a typical antidepressant or mood stabiliser/antipsychotic, respectively. Discussion There is a paucity of data studying amotivation in mood disorders. This manuscript provides general guidance on the most appropriate study design(s) and methodology to assess potential therapeutic options for the management of residual amotivation in mood disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the author discusses an article in the journal dealing with America's Veterans Affairs Augmentation and Switching Treatments for Improving Depression Outcomes (VAST-D) Study, and it mentions the effectiveness of treatments for major depressive disorder.

Residual symptoms of major depressive disorder ( MDD) following treatment are increasingly recognized as having a negative impact on the patient because of their association with lack of remission, poorer psychosocial functioning, and a more chronic course of depression. Although the effects of specific residual symptoms have not been as systematically studied, several symptoms, including fatigue, sleep disturbance, anxiety, and concentration difficulties, commonly occur as part of the residual state in MDD. In particular, the relatively high prevalence of residual fatigue suggests that this symptom is not being adequately addressed by standard antidepressant therapies. A review of the clinical relevance of residual fatigue was undertaken, using the published literature with respect to its assessment, neurobiology, and treatment implications. The findings of this review suggest that fatigue is highly prevalent as a residual symptom; its response to treatment is relatively poor or delayed; and the presence of residual fatigue is highly predictive of inability to achieve remission with treatment as well as impaired psychosocial functioning. Recognition of the significant consequences of residual fatigue should reinforce the need for further therapeutic interventions to help reduce the impact of this symptom of MDD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Our objective was to develop: 1) a longitudinal model to describe amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) disease progression using the revised Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS-R); and 2) a probabilistic model to estimate the presence of clusters of trajectories in ALS progression over 12 months of treatment. Three hundred and thirty-eight patients treated with placebo from the PRO-ACT database were included in the analyses. A non-linear Weibull model best described the ALS disease progression, and a stepwise logistic regression approach was used to select the variables predicting a slow or fast disease progression. Results identified two clusters of trajectories: 1) slow disease progressors (46% of patients with a change from baseline of 13%); 2) fast disease progressors (54% of patients with a change from baseline of 49%). ROC curve analysis estimated the optimal cut-off for classifying patients as slow or fast disease progressors given ALSFRS-R measurements at 2-4 weeks. Results showed that the degree of ALS disease progression quantified by the ALSFRS-R symptomatic change on placebo is highly heterogeneous. In conclusion, this finding indicates the potential interest of disease progression models for implementing a population enrichment strategy to control the level of heterogeneity in the patients included in new trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: We used in vitro neurogenesis-based human neural stem cell (hNSCs) assays and rodent in vivo behavioral assays to identify potential novel antidepressants. A combination of buspirone and melatonin displayed antidepressant activity in these assays whereas neither buspirone nor melatonin alone showed any antidepressant-like profile. After evaluating numerous combination ratios, we determined that low dose buspirone 15 mg combined with melatonin-SR 3 mg yielded optimal antidepressant efficacy in our pre-clinical platform. The low dose of buspirone suggested that antidepressant efficacy might be achieved with only minimal adverse event liability. Based on these data, we conducted an exploratory 6-week, multi-center, double-blind, randomized, placebo- and comparator-controlled study of the combination of buspirone and melatonin in subjects with acute Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). The combination treatment revealed a significant antidepressant response in subjects with MDD on several measures (Clinical Global Impression of Severity and Improvement, Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology) compared to either placebo or buspirone 15 mg monotherapy. These preliminary findings have clinical implications and suggest that a platform of pre-clinical neurogenesis matched with confirmatory behavioral assays may be useful as a drug discovery strategy. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objective To evaluate the prevalence of new onset or worsening of anxiety symptoms, as well as their clinical implications, during the first 2 weeks of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor (SSRI) pharmacotherapy for depression. Method Adult outpatients with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder were enrolled in an 8-week acute phase SSRI treatment trial at 15 clinical sites across the United States. Worsening anxiety was defined as a greater than 2-point increase on the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) between baseline and Week 2. New onset of anxiety symptoms was ascribed when the BAI baseline rating was 0 and the Week 2 value was greater or equal to 2 points on the BAI. Results Overall, after 2 weeks of treatment, 48.8% (98 of 201 participants) reported improvement in anxiety symptoms, 36.3% (73 of 201) reported minimal symptom change, and 14.9% (30 of 201) reported worsening of anxiety symptoms. No association was found between change in anxiety symptoms within the first 2 weeks and change in depressive symptoms or remission at the end of 8 weeks of treatment. For participants with clinically meaningful anxiety symptoms at baseline, however, worsening of anxiety during the first 2 weeks of treatment was associated with worsening depressive symptoms by 8 weeks ( P = .054). Conclusions The trajectory of anxiety symptom change early in SSRI treatment is an important indicator of eventual outcome for outpatients with major depression and baseline anxiety symptoms. Depression and Anxiety 0:1-8, 2011. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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

Abstract: Background: Using data from a relapse prevention study of duloxetine treatment for adults with major depressive disorder (MDD), we examined demographic- and illness-related variables to identify factors that may predict relapse of MDD. Methods: Post-hoc analyses, using the Cox proportional hazards model, were performed on data from a study designed to compare the time to relapse of MDD in duloxetine- and placebo-treated patients. Patients received open-label duloxetine 60 mg/day during a 12-week acute phase, and those who met response criteria were randomly assigned to duloxetine 60 mg/day (N =136) or placebo (N =142) during a 26-week double-blind continuation phase. Results: Significant predictors of relapse were VAS back pain score at entry >30, HAMD17 total score at randomization >7, and geography (Europe vs. US). Four significant treatment-by-predictor interactions were identified: the SQ-SS pain subscale score at entry>median of 4, VAS overall pain score at entry >30, VAS overall pain score at entry>median of 26, and VAS overall pain score at randomization>median of 7. In the “greater severity” category, the risk of relapse was significantly lower for duloxetine-treated patients compared with placebo-treated patients. Limitations: These were post-hoc analyses. Conclusions: Higher levels of pain severity and depressive symptoms and a US geographical location were significant predictors of relapse in patients with MDD. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

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

Objetivo: Aproximadamente la mitad de los pacientes ambulatorios con trastorno depresivo mayor presentan también niveles de ansiedad clínicamente significativos. Los autores realizaron un análisis secundario para comparar los resultados del tratamiento antidepresivo de pacientes con depresión ansiosa y depresión no ansiosa en los niveles 1 y 2 del estudio STAR*D. Método: Un total de 2.876 pacientes ambulatorios adultos con trastorno depresivo mayor, seleccionados en 18 centros de atención primaria y 23 centros de atención psiquiátrica, recibieron citalopram en el nivel 1 de STAR*D. En el nivel 2, un total de 1.292 pacientes que no obtuvieron remisión o no toleraron el citalopram fueron asignados aleatoriamente bien a cambiar a bupropión de liberación lenta (n = 239), sertralina (n = 238) o venlafaxina de liberación prolongada (n = 250) o a seguir tomando citalopram y recibir potenciación con bupropión de liberación lenta (n = 279) o buspirona (n = 286). El tratamiento podía durar hasta 14 semanas en cada nivel. Los pacientes se consideraron afectados de depresión ansiosa si su puntuación en el factor de ansiedad/somatización en los 17 ítems de la Escala de Hamilton para la Depresión (HAM-D) era de 7 o más al inicio del estudio. Se compararon los índices de remisión y respuesta, así como el tiempo hasta la remisión y la respuesta, entre los pacientes con depresión ansiosa y los pacientes con depresión no ansiosa. Resultados: En el nivel 1 de STAR*D, el 53,2 % de los pacientes tenía depresión ansiosa. La remisión fue significativamente menos probable, y tardó más tiempo en aparecer, en estos pacientes que en los que tenían depresión no ansiosa. La evaluación de la frecuencia, intensidad y carga de los efectos secundarios, así como la cantidad de acontecimientos adversos graves, fueron significativamente mayores en el grupo con depresión ansiosa. De modo similar, en el nivel 2, los pacientes con depresión ansiosa tuvieron resultados significativamente peores tanto en la opción de cambio como en la de potenciación. Conclusiones: Después del tratamiento antidepresivo la depresión ansiosa se asocia con peores resultados inmediatos que la depresión no ansiosa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Two broad treatment options exist for switching antidepressants for depressed patients who fail to respond to a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI): either a second course of SSRI therapy or a different class of antidepressants. The goal of the present work was to conduct a meta-analysis of studies comparing these two switch strategies. Methods: Several sources were searched for randomized clinical trials comparing these two switch strategies. Results: Data from four clinical trials (n = 1496) were combined using a random-effects model. Patients randomized to switch to a non-SSRI antidepressant (bupropion, mirtazapine, venlafaxine) were more likely to experience remission than patients switched to a second SSRI (risk ratio = 1.29, p = .007). Pooled remission rates were 28% (for non-SSRIs) and 23.5% (for SSRIs). There was also a nonsignificant trend (p = .1) in the rate of discontinuation due to intolerance favoring the within-class switch strategy (risk ratio = 1.23). There was no difference in response rates between the two treatment groups. Conclusions: These results suggest a modest yet statistically significant advantage in remission rates when switching patients with SSRI-resistant depression to a non-SSRI rather than an SSRI antidepressant. With the number needed to treat (NNT) statistic as one indicator of clinical significance, nearly 22 SSRI nonresponders would need to be switched to a non-SSRI rather than a second SSRI antidepressant to obtain one additional remitter. This difference falls well below the mark of NNT = 10 suggested by the United Kingdom’s National Institute of Clinical Excellence but nonetheless might be of public health relevance given the large number of SSRI-resistant patients switched to an SSRI versus a non-SSRI antidepressant. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objective: About half of outpatients with major depressive disorder also have clinically meaningful levels of anxiety. The authors conducted a secondary data analysis to compare antidepressant treatment outcomes for patients with anxious and nonanxious major depression in Levels 1 and 2 of the STAR*D study. Method: A total of 2,876 adult outpatients with major depressive disorder, en- rolled from 18 primary and 23 psychiatric care sites, received citalopram in Level 1 of STAR*D. In Level 2, a total of 1,292 patients who did not remit with or tolerate citalopram were randomly assigned either to switch to sustained-release buprpion (N=239), sertraline (N=238), or extended-release venlafaxine (N =250) or to continue taking citalopram and receive augmentation with sustained-release bupropion (N=279) or buspirone (N=286). Treatment could last up to 14 weeks in each level. Patients were designated as having anxious depression if their anxiety/somatization factor score from the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) was 7 or higher at baseline. Rates of remission and response as well as times to remission and response were compared between patients with anxious depression and those with nonanxious depression. Results: In Level 1 of STAR*D, 53.2% of patients had anxious depression. Remission was significantly less likely and took longer to occur in these patients than in those with nonanxious depression. Ratings of side effect frequency, intensity, and burden, as well as the number of serious adverse events, were significantly greater in the anxious depression group. Similarly, in Level 2, patients with anxious depression fared significantly worse in both the switching and augmentation options. Conclusions: Anxious depression is associated with poorer acute outcomes than nonanxious depression following antidepressant treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Background. Partial response, no response, or residual symptoms following antidepressant therapy is common in clinical psychiatry. This study evaluated modafinil in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who were partial responders to adequate selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) therapy and excessive sleepiness and fatigue. Methods. This retrospective analysis pooled the data of patients (18-65 yrs) who participated in two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of modafinil (6-week, flexible-dose study of 100-400 mg/day or 8-week, fixed-dose study of 200 mg/day) plus SSRI therapy. Patients (n = 348) met criteria for several residual symptoms (Epworth Sleepiness Scale [ESS] score ≥10; 17-item Hamilton Depression Scale [HAM-D] score between 4 and 25; and Fatigue Severity Scale [FSS] score ≥4). Results. Compared to placebo, modafinil augmentation rapidly (within 1 week) and significantly improved overall clinical condition (Clinical Global Impression-Improvement), wakefulness (ESS), depressive symptoms (17-item HAM-D), and fatigue (FSS) (p < .01 for all). At final visit, patients receiving modafinil augmentation experienced statistically significant improvements in overall clinical condition, wakefulness, and depressive symptoms. Modafinil was well tolerated in combination with SSRI. Conclusions. Results of this pooled analysis provide further evidence suggesting that modafinil is an effective and well-tolerated augmentation therapy for partial responders to SSRI therapy, particularly when patients continue to experience fatigue and excessive sleepiness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. This study compares the efficacy and tolerability of 12 weeks of open-label duloxetine in adult outpatients with anxious versus non-anxious depression. Methods. Participants in a major depressive episode (N = 249) began duloxetine treatment at 30 or 60 mg daily for the first week, followed by up to 11 weeks of flexibly dosed duloxetine (60, 90, or 120 mg daily). Efficacy measures included HAMD17, HAMA, and CGI-S. Safety and tolerability were assessed by early discontinuation and adverse event rates. Anxious depression was defined by a HAMD17 Anxiety/Somatization Factor score ≥ 7. Results. Duloxetine treatment was associated with a significantly greater reduction in total HAMD17 scores and HAMD17 Anxiety/Somatization Factor scores among patients with anxious depression compared to non-anxious depression. Differences in CGI-S and HAMA scores at the end of the trial between groups were not statistically significant. Remission and response rates at endpoint were similar between groups, but anxious depressives had a significantly shorter median time to response. Discontinuation rates due to any reason, discontinuation due to adverse events, and treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between groups, except for the significantly greater occurrence of influenza in anxious depressives. Conclusions. Duloxetine's efficacy in anxious depression was somewhat superior to non-anxious depression; tolerability was comparable between groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article differentiates chronic depression from personality disorders (PD). It cites comorbidity of chronic depression, including anxiety. Also stressed is the importance of obtaining a report of a patient's functioning across fluctuations in depression severity when attempting to differentiate the diseases. It provides guidelines that may help clarify the difference between PD and chronic depression.

Objective: Treatment of major depressive disorder typically entails implementing treatments in a stepwise fashion until a satisfactory outcome is achieved. This study sought to identify factors that affect patients' willingness to accept different second-step treatment approaches. Method: Participants in the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) trial who had unsatisfactory outcomes after initial treatment with citalopram were eligible for a randomized second-step treatment trial. An equipoise-stratified design allowed participants to exclude or include specific treatment strategies. Analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with the acceptability of the following second-step treatments: cognitive therapy versus no cognitive therapy, any switch strategy versus any augmentation strategy (including cognitive therapy), and a medication switch strategy only versus a medication augmentation strategy only. Results: Of the 1,439 participants who entered second-step treatment, 1% accepted all treatment strategies, 3% accepted only cognitive therapy, and 26% accepted cognitive therapy (thus, 71% did not accept cognitive therapy). Those with higher educational levels or a family history of a mood disorder were more likely to accept cognitive therapy. Participants in primary care settings and those who experienced a greater side effect burden or a lower reduction in symptom severity with citalopram were more likely to accept a switch strategy as compared with an augmentation strategy. Those with concurrent drug abuse and recurrent major depressive disorder were less likely to accept a switch strategy. Conclusions: Few participants accepted all treatments. Acceptance of cognitive therapy was primarily associated with sociodemographic characteristics, while acceptance of a treatment switch was associated with the results of the initial treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Objective: We previously found that 46% of the first 1450 outpatients with depression participating in the multicentre Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) project qualified for the designation of anxious depression. This study was designed to replicate and extend our initial findings in a subsequent, larger cohort of outpatient STAR*D participants with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder (MDD).Methods: Baseline clinical and sociodemographic data were collected on 2337 consecutive STAR*D participants. A baseline 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale Anxiety-Somatization factor score of 7 or higher was designated as anxious depression. We identified concurrent Axis I disorders with the Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire (PDSQ), using a 90% specificity threshold. Depressive symptoms were assessed by clinical telephone interview with the 30-item Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Clinician-Rated (IDS-C30).Results: The prevalence of anxious depression in this population was 45.1%. Patients with anxious MDD were significantly more likely to be in primary care settings and to be women, nonsingle, unemployed, Hispanic, less educated, and suffering from severe depression, both before and after adjustment for overall depression severity. Patients with anxious depression were significantly more likely to meet PDSQ thresholds for generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, agoraphobia, hypochondriasis, and somatoform disorder, both before and after adjusting for baseline depression severity. Individuals with anxious depression were also significantly less likely to endorse IDS-C30 items concerning atypical features and were significantly more likely to endorse items concerning melancholic-endogenous depression features, both before and after adjusting for baseline depression severity.Conclusions: This study clearly replicates our previous STAR*D findings and supports the notion that anxious depression may be a valid diagnostic subtype of MDD, with distinct psychiatric comorbidities and clinical and sociodemographic features. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objetivo: Más del 40 % de los pacientes con depresión mayor no alcanzan la remisión ni siquiera después de dos tratamientos antidepresivos administrados correctamente. Este estudio comparó la eficacia de la potenciación con litio y con triyodotironina (T3) como tercera opción terapéutica para los pacientes con trastorno depresivo mayor. Método: Un total de 142 pacientes ambulatorios adultos con trastorno depresivo mayor no psicótico, que no habín alcanzado la remisión sintomática o que no toleraban un tratamiento prospectivo inicial con citalopram y un segundo tratamiento basado en el cambio o en la potenciación antidepresiva, fueron asignados de forma aleatorizada a una potenciación con litio (hasta 900 mg/día; n = 69) o con T3 (hasta 50 μg/día; n = 73) durante 14 semanas. El principal criterio de valoración fue la remisión sintomática de los participantes, definida como una puntuación ≤ 7 en la Escala de Hamilton para la Depresión de 17 ítems. Resultados: Después de una media de 9,6 semanas (DE = 5,2) de tratamiento, los índices de remisión con litio y T3, respectivamente, aunque la diferencia no fue estadísticamente significativa. La administración de litio se acompañó con mayor frecuencia de reacciones adversas (p = 0,045), y un mayor número de participantes del grupo de litio suspendió el tratamiento por las reacciones adversad (23,2 frente a 9,6 %; p = 0,027). Conclusiones: Los índices de remisión alcanzados con la potenciación con litio y T3 en los participantes que habían experimentado unos resultados insatisfactorios con dos tratamientos farmacológicos previos, fueron bajos y no difirieron significativamente. La menor carga de reacciones adversas y la facilidad de uso de la potenciación con T3 sugieren que esta opción ofrece algunas ventajas con respecto a la potenciación cn litio para los pacientes con depresión cuyos tratamientos farmacológicos previos habían fracasado. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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

Objective: More than 40% of patients with major depressive disorder do not achieve remission even after two optimally delivered trials of antidepressant medications. This study compared the effectiveness of lithium versus triiodothyronine (T3) augmentation as a third-step treatment for patients with major depressive disorder. Method: A total of 142 adult outpatients with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder who had not achieved remission or who were intolerant to an initial prospective treatment with citalopram and a second switch or augmentation trial were randomly assigned to augmentation with lithium (up to 900 mg/day; N=69) or with T3 (up to 50 μg/day; N=73) for up to 14 weeks. The primary outcome measure was whether participants achieved remission, which was defined as a score ≤7 on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Results: After a mean of 9.6 weeks (SD=5.2) of treatment, remission rates were 15.9% with lithium augmentation and 24.7% with T3 augmentation, although the difference between treatments was not statistically significant. Lithium was more frequently associated with side effects (p=0.045), and more participants in the lithium group left treatment because of side effects (23.2% versus 9.6%; p= 0.027). Conclusions: Remission rates with lithium and T3 augmentation for participants who experienced unsatisfactory results with two prior medication treatments were modest and did not differ significantly. The lower side effect burden and ease of use of T3 augmentation suggest that it has slight advantages over lithium augmentation for depressed patients who have experienced several failed medication trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Few controlled studies have addressed the issue of which antidepressant medications should be recommended for outpatients who have not responded to multiple treatment trials. This study compared the efficacy of switching to mirtazapine to that of switching to a tricyclic antidepressant (nortriptyline) following two prospective, consecutive, unsuccessful medication treatments for non-psychotic major depressive disorder. Method: Following lack of remission or an inability to tolerate an initial trial of citalopram for up to 12 weeks (first step) and a second trial with either monotherapy involving another antidepressant or augmentation of citalopram with bupropion or buspirone (second step), adult outpatients (N=235) with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder were randomly assigned to 14 weeks of treatment with mirtazapine (up to 60 mg/day) (N114) or nortriptyline (up to 200 mg/day) (N=121). The primary outcome, symptom remission, was defined a priori as a total exit score of ≤7 on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. The 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-SeIf-Report (QIDS-SR16), obtained at treatment visits, provided secondary outcomes of remission (score ≤5 at exit) and response (≥50% reduction in score from baseline). Results: For mirtazapine, remission rates were 12.3% and 8.0% per the Hamilton and QIDS-SR16 scores, respectively. For nortriptyline, remission rates were 19.8% and 12.4%, respectively. QIDS-SR16 response rates were 13.4% for mirtazapine and 16.5% for nortriptyline. Neither response nor remission rates statistically differed by treatment, nor did these two treatments differ in tolerability or adverse events. Conclusions: Switching to a third antidepressant monotherapy regimen after two consecutive unsuccessful antidepressant trials resulted in low remission rates (<20%) among patients with major depressive disorder. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Insomnia and major depressive disorder (MDD) can coexist. This study evaluated the effect of adding eszopiclone to fluoxetine. Methods: Patients who met DSM-IV criteria for both MDD and insomnia (n = 545) received morning fluoxetine and were randomized to nightly eszopiclone 3 mg (ESZ+FLX) or placebo (PBO+FLX) for 8 weeks. Subjective sleep and daytime function were assessed weekly. Depression was assessed with the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-17) and the Clinical Global Impression Improvement (CGI-I) and Severity items (CGI-S). Results: Patients in the ESZ+FLX group had significantly decreased sleep latency, wake time after sleep onset (WASO), increased total sleep time (TST), sleep quality, and depth of sleep at all double-blind time points (all p < .05). Eszopiclone co-therapy also resulted in: significantly greater changes in HAM-D-17 scores at Week 4 (p = .01) with progressive improvement at Week 8 (p = .002); significantly improved CGI-I and CGI-S scores at all time points beyond Week 1 (p < .05); and significantly more responders (59% vs. 48%; p = .009) and remitters (42% vs. 33%; p = .03) at Week 8. Treatment was well tolerated, with similar adverse event and dropout rates. Conclusions: In this study, eszopiclone/fluoxetine co-therapy was relatively well tolerated and associated with rapid, substantial, and sustained sleep improvement, a faster onset of antidepressant response on the basis of CGI, and a greater magnitude of the antidepressant effect. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Continuation of antidepressant therapy after patients have responded to medication has been shown to greatly reduce but not eliminate relapse. We evaluated response to reinstating or increasing drug doses in patients who relapsed during a long-term, randomized, double-blind, continuation phase study of duloxetine treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD). Patients with HAMD17 scores of >18 and CGI-Severity scores of >4 received duloxetine 60mg QD for 12 weeks, responders then received 26 weeks of duloxetine 60mg QD or placebo. The relapsing patients who started 12 weeks of rescue treatment received duloxetine 60mg QD (if relapsing on placebo) or duloxetine 60mg BID (if relapsing on duloxetine). In the continuation phase, 87 patients received duloxetine 60mg QD (n =58) or 60mg BID (n =29) as treatment for relapse. The percentage of patients who responded to treatment after relapse was 62% of those whose dose was increased from 60mg QD to 60mg BID, and 74% for those who switched from placebo to duloxetine 60mg daily. By the end of the study, 32 patients taking duloxetine 60mg QD were in remission (57%), compared with 11 patients taking duloxetine 60mg BID (38%). There was significant improvement in HAMD17 and CGI-Severity scores for both groups at endpoint vs. start of treatment for relapse. Significant improvements were seen for all visual analog scale parameters in the 60mg QD group, but only Interference with Daily Activities and Back Pain parameters showed significant improvement for patients receiving 60mg BID. Significant within-group improvement from baseline was seen for both groups in Symptom Questionnaire-Somatic Subscale total and pain subscales. Treatment-emergent adverse events were mild/moderate in severity; no clinically significant changes were noted in laboratory results or vital signs. Reinstatement of duloxetine 60mg QD was effective for patients who relapsed after discontinuing drug. Patients relapsing on duloxetine 60mg QD benefited from an increase to 60mg BID. These duloxetine doses were well tolerated and effective, and appear appropriate for MDD patients requiring treatment of relapse. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Despite the efficacy of currently available antidepressant treatment, residual symptoms are common among individuals treated for major depressive disorder and are associated with an increased risk of relapse and poor psychosocial functioning. However, distinguishing treatment-emergent side effects from residual symptoms can be challenging for clinicians. Anxiety, sleep disturbance, somnolence/fatigue, apathy and cognitive dysfunction are among the more frequent residual symptoms. Approaches to the management of residual symptoms include addressing treatment-emergent side effects and co-morbid conditions, optimizing antidepressant dosing and using augmentation therapy. Clinicians are often guided in their decisions by anecdotal impressions. Studies assessing the evaluation and treatment of residual symptoms and side effects will contribute importantly to the optimal acute and long-term management of depression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Anxious depression, defined as Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) with high levels of anxiety symptoms, may represent a relatively common depressive subtype, with distinctive features. Objective. The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of anxious depression and to define its clinical correlates and symptom patterns. Method. Baseline clinical and sociodemographic data were collected on 1450 subjects participating in the STAR*D study. A baseline Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) Anxiety/ Somatization factor score of ≥7 was considered indicative of anxious depression. The types and degree of concurrent psychiatric symptoms were measured using the Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire (PDSQ), by recording the number of items endorsed by study participants for each diagnostic category. MDD symptoms were assessed by clinical telephone interview with the 30-item Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (IDS-C30). Results. The prevalence of anxious depression in this population was 46%. Patients with anxious MDD were significantly more likely to be older, unemployed, less educated, more severely depressed, and to have suicidal ideation before and after adjustment for severity of depression. As far as concurrent psychiatric symptoms are concerned, patients with anxious depression were significantly more likely to endorse symptoms related to generalized anxiety, obsessive compulsive, panic, post-traumatic stress, agoraphobia, hypochondriasis, and somatoform disorders before and after adjustment for severity of depression. Anxious-depression individuals were also significantly less likely to endorse IDS-C30 items concerning atypical features, and were significantly more likely to endorse items concerning melancholic/endogenous depression features. Conclusion. This study supports specific clinical and sociodemographic correlates of MDD associated with high levels of anxiety (anxious depression). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Depressive disorders are highly prevalent in the general population. Long-term treatment with antidepressants consolidates the improvement obtained during the acute phase of the treatment and prevents relapses and recurrences of the disorder. On the other hand, there is growing evidence that antidepressant side effects may limit patients' quality of life and social functioning, as well as affect patients' health and treatment adherence. Most studies concerning antidepressant treatment have focused on short-term tolerability, ignoring both early-onset persistent side effects and late-onset side effects that are reported during long-term treatment Nevertheless, these long-term treatment side effects are likely to have a dramatic impact on patient outcome and treatment adherence. Common long-term side effects of antidepressants are weight gain, sexual dysfunction, sleep disturbances, fatigue, apathy, and cognitive impairment (e.g., working memory dysfunction). Usual strategies for the management of these long-term side effects are: changing drug daily schedule, various augmentation therapies, antidepressant switches, drug- holidays, and dose tapering, with the latter two strategies being strongly discouraged on the basis of concerns that patients' depressive episodes may return. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and atypical antidepressants (e.g., venlafaxine, bupropion, and nefazodone) show a relatively favorable short-term as well as long-term tolerability compared with older drugs (e.g., tricyclics and monoamine oxidase inhibitors). Therefore, clinicians are likely to prefer them in usual practice, especially among patients requiring maintenance treatment The present review focuses on management of long-term side effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) typically refers to inadequate response to at least one antidepressant trial of adequate doses and duration. TRD is a relatively common occurrence in clinical practice, with up to 50% to 60% of the patients not achieving adequate response following antidepressant treatment. A diagnostic re-evaluation is essential to the proper management of these patients. In particular, the potential role of several contributing factors, such as medical and psychiatric comorbidity, needs to be taken into account. An accurate and systematic assessment of TRD is a challenge to both clinicians and researchers, with the use of clinician-rated or self-rated instruments being perhaps quite helpful. It is apparent that there may be varying degrees of treatment resistance. Some staging methods to assess levels of treatment resistance in depression are being developed, but need to be tested empirically. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Depressive disorders are a significant public health issue. They are prevalent, disabling, often chronic illnesses, which cause a high economic burden for society, related to both direct and indirect costs. Depressive disorders also influence significantly the outcome of comorbid medical illnesses such as cardiac diseases, diabetes, and cancer. In primary care, underrecognition and undertreatment of depressive disorders are common, despite their relatively high prevalence, which accounts typically for more than 10% of patients. Primary care physicians should be aware of the common risk factors for depressive disorders such as gender, neuroticism, life events and adverse childhood experiences, and they should be familiar with associated features such as a positive psychiatric family history and prior depressive episodes. In primary care settings, depressive disorders should be considered with patients with multiple medical problems, unexplained physical symptoms, chronic pain or use of medical services that is more frequent than expected. Management of depressive disorders in primary care should include treatment with the newer antidepressant agents (given the fact they are typically well tolerated and safe) and focus on concomitant unhealthy behaviors as well as treatment adherence, which may both affect patient outcome. Programs aimed at improving patient follow-up and the coordination of the primary care intervention with that of specialists have been found to improve patient outcomes and to be cost effective. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]