John Zajecka

Vagus nerve stimulation for treatment-resistant depression: A randomized, controlled acute phase trial

BACKGROUND Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) alters both concentrations of neurotransmitters or their metabolites and functional activity of central nervous system regions dysregulated in mood disorders. An open trial has suggested efficacy. METHODS This 10-week, acute, randomized, controlled, masked trial compared adjunctive VNS with sham treatment in 235 outpatients with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder (n = 210) or nonpsychotic, depressed phase, bipolar disorder (n = 25). In the current episode, participants had not responded adequately to between two and six research-qualified medication trials. A two-week, single-blind recovery period (no stimulation) and then 10 weeks of masked active or sham VNS followed implantation. Medications were kept stable. Primary efficacy outcome among 222 evaluable participants was based on response rates (>/=50% reduction from baseline on the 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HRSD(24)]). RESULTS At 10-weeks, HRSD(24) response rates were 15.2% for the active (n = 112) and 10.0% for the sham (n = 110) groups (p = .251, last observation carried forward [LOCF]). Response rates with a secondary outcome, the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology - Self-Report (IDS-SR(30)), were 17.0% (active) and 7.3% (sham) (p = .032, LOCF). VNS was well tolerated; 1% (3/235) left the study because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS This study did not yield definitive evidence of short-term efficacy for adjunctive VNS in treatment-resistant depression.

Mood disturbance versus other symptoms of depression in multiple sclerosis.

We administered the Multiscale Depression Inventory (MDI) and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) to 84 multiple sclerosis (MS) patients, 101 patients diagnosed with major depression and 87 nonmedical, nonpsychiatric controls. The MDI consists of three separate depression scales measuring mood, vegetative, and evaluative symptoms. We found that: (a) MS patients did not significantly differ from the controls in mood symptoms, (b) the depression prevalence rate in MS patients was significantly lower when measured by the mood scale (17.7%) than by the BDI (30.5%) or MDI total score (26.6%), and (c) MS patients showed significantly less mood disturbance than a non-MS comparison group matched on BDI measured depression severity. We suggest that the inclusion of nonmood symptoms in self-report depression scales may artificially raise both prevalence rates and severity ratings of MS related depression and that the most valid measure of depression in MS is mood disturbance.

Paroxetine for prevention of depressive symptoms induced by interferon-alpha and ribavirin for hepatitis C.

Background Whether antidepressants prevent depression during interferon‐alpha/ribavirin treatment for hepatitis C virus infection has yet to be established.

l-Methylfolate as Adjunctive Therapy for SSRI-Resistant Major Depression: Results of Two Randomized, Double-Blind, Parallel-Sequential Trials

OBJECTIVE The authors conducted two multicenter sequential parallel comparison design trials to investigate the effect of L-methylfolate augmentation in the treatment of major depressive disorder in patients who had a partial response or no response to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). METHOD In the first trial, 148 outpatients with SSRI-resistant major depressive disorder were enrolled in a 60-day study divided into two 30-day periods. Patients were randomly assigned, in a 2:3:3 ratio, to receive L-methylfolate for 60 days (7.5 mg/day for 30 days followed by 15 mg/day for 30 days), placebo for 30 days followed by L-methylfolate (7.5 mg/day) for 30 days, or placebo for 60 days. SSRI dosages were kept constant throughout the study. In the second trial, with 75 patients, the design was identical to the first, except that the l-methylfolate dosage was 15 mg/day during both 30-day periods. RESULTS In the first trial, no significant difference was observed in outcomes between the treatment groups. In the second trial, adjunctive L-methylfolate at 15 mg/day showed significantly greater efficacy compared with continued SSRI therapy plus placebo on both primary outcome measures (response rate and degree of change in depression symptom score) and two secondary outcome measures of symptom severity. The number needed to treat for response was approximately six in favor of adjunctive L-methylfolate at 15 mg/day. L-Methylfolate was well tolerated, with rates of adverse events no different from those reported with placebo. CONCLUSIONS Adjunctive L-methylfolate at 15 mg/day may constitute an effective, safe, and relatively well tolerated treatment strategy for patients with major depressive disorder who have a partial response or no response to SSRIs.

A double-blind, randomized trial of St John's wort, fluoxetine, and placebo in major depressive disorder

Objective: This study looks to compare the antidepressant efficacy and safety of a standardized extract of St Johns wort with both placebo and fluoxetine. Method: After a 1-week single-blind washout, patients with major depressive disorder diagnosed by Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition were randomized to 12 weeks of double-blind treatment with LI-160 St Johns wort extract (900 mg/d), fluoxetine (20 mg/d), or placebo. The 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD-17) was the primary efficacy measure, and analysis of covariance was used to compare differences in end point HAMD-17 scores across the 3 treatment groups, treating the baseline HAMD-17 as the covariate. Results: One hundred thirty-five patients (57% women; mean age, 37.3 ± 11.0; mean HAMD-17, 19.7 ± 3.2) were randomized to double-blind treatment and were included in the intent-to-treat analyses. Analysis of covariance analyses showed lower mean HAMD-17 scores at end point in the St Johns wort group (n = 45; mean ± SD, 10.2 ± 6.6) compared with the fluoxetine group (n = 47; 13.3 ± 7.3; P < 0.03) and a trend toward a similar finding relative to the placebo group (n = 43; 12.6 ± 6.4; P = 0.096). There was also a trend toward higher rates of remission (HAMD-17 <8) in the St Johns wort group (38%) compared with the fluoxetine group (30%) and the placebo group (21%). Overall, St Johns wort appeared to be safe and well tolerated. Conclusion: St Johns wort was significantly more effective than fluoxetine and showed a trend toward superiority over placebo. A (25%) smaller than planned sample size is likely to account for the lack of statistical significance for the advantage (indicating a moderate effect size, d = 0.45) of St Johns wort over placebo.

A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Active-Reference, Double-Blind, Flexible-Dose Study of the Efficacy of Vortioxetine on Cognitive Function in Major Depressive Disorder

This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, active-referenced (duloxetine 60 mg), parallel-group study evaluated the short-term efficacy and safety of vortioxetine (10–20 mg) on cognitive function in adults (aged 18–65 years) diagnosed with major depressive disorder (MDD) who self-reported cognitive dysfunction. Efficacy was evaluated using ANCOVA for the change from baseline to week 8 in the digit symbol substitution test (DSST)–number of correct symbols as the prespecified primary end point. The patient-reported perceived deficits questionnaire (PDQ) and physician-assessed clinical global impression (CGI) were analyzed in a prespecified hierarchical testing sequence as key secondary end points. Additional predefined end points included the objective performance-based University of San Diego performance-based skills assessment (UPSA) (ANCOVA) to measure functionality, MADRS (MMRM) to assess efficacy in depression, and a prespecified multiple regression analysis (path analysis) to calculate direct vs indirect effects of vortioxetine on cognitive function. Safety and tolerability were assessed at all visits. Vortioxetine was statistically superior to placebo on the DSST (P<0.05), PDQ (P<0.01), CGI-I (P<0.001), MADRS (P<0.05), and UPSA (P<0.001). Path analysis indicated that vortioxetine’s cognitive benefit was primarily a direct treatment effect rather than due to alleviation of depressive symptoms. Duloxetine was not significantly different from placebo on the DSST or UPSA, but was superior to placebo on the PDQ, CGI-I, and MADRS. Common adverse events (incidence ⩾5%) for vortioxetine were nausea, headache, and diarrhea. In this study of MDD adults who self-reported cognitive dysfunction, vortioxetine significantly improved cognitive function, depression, and functionality and was generally well tolerated.

CNS STIMULANT POTENTIATION OF MONOAMINE OXIDASE INHIBITORS IN TREATMENT-REFRACTORY DEPRESSION

We report on our clinical experience with a combination of a CNS stimulant (either pemoline or dextroamphetamine) and a monoamine oxidase inhibitor (MAOI) for treating 32 depressed patients (mainly outpatients) refractory to standard antidepressant pharmacotherapy. This combination, though not approved by the FDA, appears to be safe and effective. Twenty-five (78%) of these patients experienced at least 6 months of symptom remission with a stimulant + MAOI combination. Many patients required adjunctive antidepressant treatment, including tricyclics and lithium. Side effects were not excessive, though 6 patients (3 unipolar and 3 bipolar) cycled to mania (N = 1) or hypomania (N = 5). None developed hypertensive crises. With properly motivated and complaint patients and careful clinical monitoring by the prescribing psychiatrist, stimulant potentiation of MAOIs may be a viable option for treatment-resistant depressed patients.

Effect of Cognitive Therapy With Antidepressant Medications vs Antidepressants Alone on the Rate of Recovery in Major Depressive Disorder: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE Antidepressant medication (ADM) is efficacious in the treatment of depression, but not all patients achieve remission and fewer still achieve recovery with ADM alone. OBJECTIVE To determine the effects of combining cognitive therapy (CT) with ADM vs ADM alone on remission and recovery in major depressive disorder (MDD). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A total of 452 adult outpatients with chronic or recurrent MDD participated in a trial conducted in research clinics at 3 university medical centers in the United States. The patients were randomly assigned to ADM treatment alone or CT combined with ADM treatment. Treatment was continued for up to 42 months until recovery was achieved. INTERVENTIONS Antidepressant medication with or without CT. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Blind evaluations of recovery with a modified version of the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and the Longitudinal Interval Follow-up Evaluation. RESULTS Combined treatment enhanced the rate of recovery vs treatment with ADM alone (72.6% vs 62.5%; t451 = 2.45; P = .01; hazard ratio [HR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.06-1.68; number needed to treat [NNT], 10; 95% CI, 5-72). This effect was conditioned on interactions with severity (t451 = 1.97; P = .05; NNT, 5) and chronicity (χ2 = 7.46; P = .02; NNT, 6) such that the advantage for combined treatment was limited to patients with severe, nonchronic MDD (81.3% vs 51.7%; n = 146; t145 = 3.96; P = .001; HR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.54-3.57; NNT, 3; 95% CI, 2-5). Fewer patients dropped out of combined treatment vs ADM treatment alone (18.9% vs 26.8%; t451 = -2.04; P = .04; HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.45-0.98). Remission rates did not differ significantly either as a main effect of treatment or as an interaction with severity or chronicity. Patients with comorbid Axis II disorders took longer to recover than did patients without comorbid Axis II disorders regardless of the condition (P = .01). Patients who received combined treatment reported fewer serious adverse events than did patients who received ADMs alone (49 vs 71; P = .02), largely because they experienced less time in an MDD episode. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Cognitive therapy combined with ADM treatment enhances the rates of recovery from MDD relative to ADMs alone, with the effect limited to patients with severe, nonchronic depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00057577.

Lack of sexual dysfunction with the selective noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor reboxetine during treatment for major depressive disorder.

&NA; Sexual side‐effects due to antidepressant treatment are an important consideration when selecting a treatment regimen and can influence patient compliance. Sexual function during treatment with the selective noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor reboxetine, the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) fluoxetine and placebo has been assessed in a multicentre, randomized, 8‐week, double‐blind study of 450 patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder. Sexual function was measured by the Rush Sexual Inventory completed by male and female patients and administered at baseline, week 4 and week 8. The results indicate that reboxetine was similar to placebo and superior to fluoxetine in its effect on overall sexual function. There was a greater degree of sexual satisfaction in the reboxetine group compared to fluoxetine (P = 0.02). The percentage of female patients able to achieve orgasm increased during the study period for women who received reboxetine and placebo, but decreased for those who received fluoxetine. These results suggest that reboxetine may be of particular benefit for patients at risk for sexual dysfunction with SSRIs.

Pharmacotherapy of depression and mixed states in bipolar disorder

The treatment of bipolar depression requires the resolution of depression and the establishment of mood stability. A basic problem is that the treatments used in treating bipolar depression were developed and proven effective for other disease states: antidepressants for unipolar depression, and mood stabilizers for mania. The panel addressed four unresolved questions regarding depression in relation to bipolar disorder: (1) the relative effectiveness of different antidepressant treatments; (2) the relative likelihood of mood destabilization with different antidepressant treatments; (3) the effectiveness and role of mood-stabilizing medicines as antidepressants; and (4) the optimal approach to mixed states. The selection of an antidepressant depends both on its relative lack of mania- or hypomania-provoking potential and on its effectiveness against bipolar depression. There is little definitive evidence distinguishing effectiveness of the major groups of antidepressive agents, so side-effect profiles and pharmacokinetics are major considerations. The underlying bipolar disorder should be treated with mood stabilizers started simultaneously with any antidepressive treatments. Lithium, divalproex sodium and carbamazepine have all been found to be helpful, to some extent, in treating bipolar depressive episodes as well as for long-term mood stabilization. There is little evidence for long-term benefits of antidepressive agents in bipolar disorder, and some evidence that they may destabilize the disorder. Therefore, in contrast to the long-term use of mood-stabilizers, antidepressant use is recommended on a temporary basis. The duration of antidepressant treatment is determined by past history in terms of liability for mood destabilization, and by the ability of the patient to tolerate gradual antidepressant discontinuation without return of depression. Mixed states, where symptoms of depression and mania coexist, are regarded as a predictor of relatively poor response to lithium, and divalproex has been found to be more effective. Carbamazepine may too be useful in mixed states. Most patients with mixed states in actual practice require combinations of mood stabilizers, though there is little controlled data regarding such co-prescription, especially from a long-term perspective.