David J. Kupfer

Acute and Longer- Term Outcomes in Depressed Outpatients Requiring One or Several Treatment Steps: A STAR*D Report

OBJECTIVE This report describes the participants and compares the acute and longer-term treatment outcomes associated with each of four successive steps in the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) trial. METHOD A broadly representative adult outpatient sample with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder received one (N=3,671) to four (N=123) successive acute treatment steps. Those not achieving remission with or unable to tolerate a treatment step were encouraged to move to the next step. Those with an acceptable benefit, preferably symptom remission, from any particular step could enter a 12-month naturalistic follow-up phase. A score of <or=5 on the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report (QIDS-SR(16)) (equivalent to <or=7 on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HRSD(17)]) defined remission; a QIDS-SR(16) total score of >or=11 (HRSD(17)>or=14) defined relapse. RESULTS The QIDS-SR(16) remission rates were 36.8%, 30.6%, 13.7%, and 13.0% for the first, second, third, and fourth acute treatment steps, respectively. The overall cumulative remission rate was 67%. Overall, those who required more treatment steps had higher relapse rates during the naturalistic follow-up phase. In addition, lower relapse rates were found among participants who were in remission at follow-up entry than for those who were not after the first three treatment steps. CONCLUSIONS When more treatment steps are required, lower acute remission rates (especially in the third and fourth treatment steps) and higher relapse rates during the follow-up phase are to be expected. Studies to identify the best multistep treatment sequences for individual patients and the development of more broadly effective treatments are needed.

Sequenced treatment alternatives to relieve depression (STAR*D): Rationale and design

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 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.

Amphetamine-induced dopamine release in human ventral striatum correlates with euphoria

BACKGROUND Studies in experimental animals have implicated the mesolimbic dopaminergic projections into the ventral striatum in the neural processes underlying behavioral reinforcement and motivated behavior; however, understanding the relationship between subjective emotional experience and ventral striatal dopamine (DA) release has awaited human studies. Using positron emission tomography (PET), we correlated the change in endogenous dopamine concentrations following dextroamphetamine (AMPH) administration with the associated hedonic response in human subjects and compared the strength of this correlation across striatal subregions. METHODS We obtained PET measures of [(11)C]raclopride specific binding to DA D2/D3 receptors before and after AMPH injection (0.3 mg/kg IV) in seven healthy subjects. The change in [(11)C]raclopride binding potential (DeltaBP) induced by AMPH pretreatment and the correlation between DeltaBP and the euphoric response to AMPH were compared between the anteroventral striatum (AVS; comprised of accumbens area, ventromedial caudate, and anteroventral putamen) and the dorsal caudate (DCA) using an MRI-based region of interest analysis of the PET data. RESULTS The mean DeltaBP was greater in the AVS than in the DCA (p <.05). The AMPH-induced changes in euphoria analog scale scores correlated inversely with DeltaBP in the AVS (r = -.95; p <.001), but not in the DCA (r =.30, ns). Post hoc assessments showed that changes in tension-anxiety ratings correlated positively with DeltaBP in the AVS (r =.80; p [uncorrected] <.05) and that similar relationships may exist between DeltaBP and emotion ratings in the ventral putamen (as were found in the AVS). CONCLUSIONS The preferential sensitivity of the ventral striatum to the DA releasing effects of AMPH previously demonstrated in experimental animals extends to humans. The magnitude of ventral striatal DA release correlates positively with the hedonic response to AMPH.

Pet imaging of serotonin 1A receptor binding in depression

BACKGROUND The serotonin-1A (5HT1A) receptor system has been implicated in the pathophysiology of major depression by postmortem studies of suicide victims and depressed subjects dying of natural causes. This literature is in disagreement, however, regarding the brain regions where 5HT1A receptor binding differs between depressives and controls and the direction of such differences relative to the normal baseline, possibly reflecting the diagnostic heterogeneity inherent within suicide samples. PET imaging using the 5HT1A receptor radioligand, [11C]WAY-100635, may clarify the clinical conditions under which 5HT1A receptor binding potential (BP) is abnormal in depression. METHODS Regional 5HT1A receptor BP values were compared between 12 unmedicated depressives with primary, recurrent, familial mood disorders and 8 healthy controls using PET and [carbonyl-11C]WAY-100635. Regions-of-interest (ROI) assessed were the mesiotemporal cortex (hippocampus-amygdala) and midbrain raphe, where previous postmortem studies suggested 5HT1A receptor binding is abnormal in depression. RESULTS The mean 5HT1A receptor BP was reduced 41.5% in the raphe (p < .02) and 26.8% in the mesiotemporal cortex (p < .025) in the depressives relative to the controls. Post hoc comparisons showed the abnormal reduction in 5HT1A receptor BP was not limited to these regions, but extended to control ROI in the occipital cortex and postcentral gyrus as well. The magnitude of these abnormalities was most prominent in bipolar depressives (n = 4) and unipolar depressives with bipolar relatives (n = 4). CONCLUSIONS Serotonin-1A receptor BP is abnormally decreased in the depressed phase of familial mood disorders in multiple brain regions. Of the regions tested, the magnitude of this reduction was most prominent in the midbrain raphe. Converging evidence from postmortem studies of mood disorders suggests these reductions of 5HT1A receptor BP may be associated with histopathological changes involving the raphe.

Size of treatment effects and their importance to clinical research and practice.

In randomized clinical trails (RCTs), effect sizes seen in earlier studies guide both the choice of the effect size that sets the appropriate threshold of clinical significance and the rationale to believe that the true effect size is above that threshold worth pursuing in an RCT. That threshold is used to determine the necessary sample size for the proposed RCT. Once the RCT is done, the data generated are used to estimate the true effect size and its confidence interval. Clinical significance is assessed by comparing the true effect size to the threshold effect size. In subsequent meta-analysis, this effect size is combined with others, ultimately to determine whether treatment (T) is clinically significantly better than control (C). Thus, effect sizes play an important role both in designing RCTs and in interpreting their results; but specifically which effect size? We review the principles of statistical significance, power, and meta-analysis, and commonly used effect sizes. The commonly used effect sizes are limited in conveying clinical significance. We recommend three equivalent effect sizes: number needed to treat, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve comparing T and C responses, and success rate difference, chosen specifically to convey clinical significance.

Background and rationale for the sequenced treatment alternatives to relieve depression (STAR*D) study.

Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) attempts to fill in major clinical information gaps and to evaluate the theoretical principles and clinical beliefs that currently guide pharmacotherapy of major depressive disorder. The study is conducted in representative participant groups and settings using clinical management tools that easily can be applied in daily practice. Outcomes include clinical outcomes and health care utilization and cost estimates. Research findings should be immediately applicable to, and easily implemented in, the daily primary and specialty care practices. This article provides the overall rationale for STAR*D and details the rationale for key design, measurement, and analytic features of the study.

Rationale, design, and methods of the systematic treatment enhancement program for bipolar disorder (STEP-BD)

The Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for Bipolar Disorder (STEP-BD) was conceived in response to a National Institute of Mental Health initiative seeking a public health intervention model that could generate externally valid answers to treatment effectiveness questions related to bipolar disorder. STEP-BD, like all effectiveness research, faces many design challenges, including how to do the following: recruit a representative sample of patients for studies of readily available treatments; implement a common intervention strategy across diverse settings; determine outcomes for patients in multiple phases of illness; make provisions for testing as yet undetermined new treatments; integrate adjunctive psychosocial interventions; and avoid biases due to subject drop-out and last-observation-carried-forward data analyses. To meet these challenges, STEP-BD uses a hybrid design to collect longitudinal data as patients make transitions between naturalistic studies and randomized clinical trials. Bipolar patients of every subtype with age >/= 15 years are accessioned into a study registry. All patients receive a systematic assessment battery at entry and are treated by a psychiatrist (trained to deliver care and measure outcomes in patients with bipolar disorder) using a series of model practice procedures consistent with expert recommendations. At every follow-up visit, the treating psychiatrist completes a standardized assessment and assigns an operationalized clinical status based on DSM-IV criteria. Patients have independent evaluations at regular intervals throughout the study and remain under the care of the same treating psychiatrist while making transitions between randomized care studies and the standard care treatment pathways. This article reviews the methodology used for the selection and certification of the clinical treatment centers, training study personnel, the general approach to clinical management, and the sequential treatment strategies offered in the STEP-BD standard and randomized care pathways for bipolar depression and relapse prevention.

Neuropsychologic impairments in bipolar and unipolar mood disorders on the CANTAB neurocognitive battery

BACKGROUND Cognitive deficits associated with mood disorders, especially bipolar disorder, have been the focus of limited systematic investigation. METHODS We tested 35 bipolar (21 in depressed state and 14 in mixed or manic state) and 58 nonbipolar depressed consecutively admitted young adult inpatients and 51 matched healthy individuals on the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery, a computerized neurocognitive battery. RESULTS The mixed/manic bipolar patients demonstrated robust deficits in episodic and working memory, spatial attention, and problem solving. In contrast, depressed bipolar and nonbipolar patients demonstrated impairments only in episodic memory. CONCLUSIONS Neuropsychologic findings with the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery indicate widely distributed deficits in cognitive domains subserved by temporal, parietal, and frontostriatal systems in bipolar patients during mixed/manic states of illness. Significant deficits in bipolar and nonbipolar depressed patients were restricted to episodic memory, suggesting a more selective dysfunction in mesial temporal lobe function during episodes of depression. These findings highlight the different cognitive profiles of mania and depression, demonstrate similar patterns of neuropsychologic deficits in bipolar and nonbipolar depression, and point to a need for further research investigating the characteristics, causes, course, and treatment of severe cognitive deficits associated with mixed/manic phases of bipolar disorder.

Forebrain activation in REM sleep: an FDG PET study

Rapid eye movement (REM) sleep is a behavioral state characterized by cerebral cortical activation with dreaming as an associated behavior. The brainstem mechanisms involved in the generation of REM sleep are well-known, but the forebrain mechanisms that might distinguish it from waking are not well understood. We report here a positron emission tomography (PET) study of regional cerebral glucose utilization in the human forebrain during REM sleep in comparison to waking in six healthy adult females using the 18F-deoxyglucose method. In REM sleep, there is relative activation, shown by increased glucose utilization, in phylogenetically old limbic and paralimbic regions which include the lateral hypothalamic area, amygdaloid complex, septal-ventral striatal areas, and infralimbic, prelimbic, orbitofrontal, cingulate, entorhinal and insular cortices. The largest area of activation is a bilateral, confluent paramedian zone which extends from the septal area into ventral striatum, infralimbic, prelimbic, orbitofrontal and anterior cingulate cortex. There are only small and scattered areas of apparent deactivation. These data suggest that an important function of REM sleep is the integration of neocortical function with basal forebrain-hypothalamic motivational and reward mechanisms. This is in accordance with views that alterations in REM sleep in psychiatric disorders, such as depression, may reflect dysregulation in limbic and paralimbic structures.

Report by the ACNP Task Force on Response and Remission in Major Depressive Disorder

This report summarizes recommendations from the ACNP Task Force on the conceptualization of remission and its implications for defining recovery, relapse, recurrence, and response for clinical investigators and practicing clinicians. Given the strong implications of remission for better function and a better prognosis, remission is a valid, clinically relevant end point for both practitioners and investigators. Not all depressed patients, however, will reach remission. Response is a less desirable primary outcome in trials because it depends highly on the initial (often single) baseline measure of symptom severity. It is recommended that remission be ascribed after 3 consecutive weeks during which minimal symptom status (absence of both sadness and reduced interest/pleasure along with the presence of fewer than three of the remaining seven DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criterion symptoms) is maintained. Once achieved, remission can only be lost if followed by a relapse. Recovery is ascribed after at least 4 months following the onset of remission, during which a relapse has not occurred. Recovery, once achieved, can only be lost if followed by a recurrence. Day-to-day functioning and quality of life are important secondary end points, but they were not included in the proposed definitions of response, remission, recovery, relapse, or recurrence. These recommendations suggest that symptom ratings that measure all nine criterion symptom domains to define a major depressive episode are preferred as they provide a more certain ascertainment of remission. These recommendations were based largely on logic, the need for internal consistency, and clinical experience owing to the lack of empirical evidence to test these concepts. Research to evaluate these recommendations empirically is needed.