Megan M. Filkowski

A 6 week randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of ziprasidone for the acute depressive mixed state.

Objective To examine the efficacy of ziprasidone vs. placebo for the depressive mixed state in patients with bipolar disorder type II or major depressive disorder (MDD). Methods 73 patients were randomized in a double-blinded, placebo-controlled study to ziprasidone (40-160 mg/d) or placebo for 6 weeks. They met DSM-IV criteria for a major depressive episode (MDE), while also meeting 2 or 3 (but not more nor less) DSM-IV manic criteria. They did not meet DSM-IV criteria for a mixed or manic episode. Baseline psychotropic drugs were continued unchanged. The primary endpoint measured was Montgomery- Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) scores over time. The mean dose of ziprasidone was 129.7±45.3 mg/day and 126.1±47.1 mg/day for placebo. Results The primary outcome analysis indicated efficacy of ziprasidone versus placebo (p = 0.0038). Efficacy was more pronounced in type II bipolar disorder than in MDD (p = 0.036). Overall ziprasidone was well tolerated, without notable worsening of weight or extrapyramidal symptoms. Conclusions There was a statistically significant benefit with ziprasidone versus placebo in this first RCT of any medication for the provisional diagnostic concept of the depressive mixed state. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00490542

An open prospective study of zonisamide in acute bipolar depression.

Objective: To examine the effectiveness and safety of zonisamide in the treatment of acute bipolar depression. Methods: An open-label, prospective, nonrandomized, 8-week study conducted in bipolar outpatients (type I, type II, or not otherwise specified) with depressive symptoms. No patient was manic or mixed at study entry. Previous treatments were continued unchanged, but no new treatments were allowed. Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale and the Mania Rating Scale from the Schedule of Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia-Change Version were used. Results: Twenty patients (10 men, 10 women) with bipolar disorder (17 type I, 2 type II, 1 NOS), aged 38.1 ± 8.81 years, received zonisamide at mean dose of 222.5 ± 85.1 mg/d. Mean Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale scores improved significantly from baseline to endpoint (mean difference = −8.4, 95% confidence interval [4.1, 12.6], P = 0.001). Ten patients (50%) terminated early due to adverse effects, mostly side effects including nausea/vomiting, cognitive impairment, and sedation. One patient experienced increased suicidal ideation, and one patient experienced hypomania. Conclusions: This study suggests improvement of depressive symptoms in this sample with 8 weeks of open-label zonisamide treatment.

A prospective, open-label study of Aripiprazole mono- and adjunctive treatment in acute bipolar depression.

OBJECTIVE To examine the efficacy and tolerability of aripiprazole treatment for acute bipolar depression. METHODS A six-week prospective, nonrandomized, open label study was conducted in depressed bipolar outpatients (types I, II, and NOS), as diagnosed by DSM-IV criteria. Previous treatments were continued unchanged, and new treatments not permitted, except lorazepam up to 2 mg daily. Aripiprazole was dosed flexibly up to a maximum of 30 mg daily, based on tolerability and efficacy. Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and Mania Rating Scale (MRS) scores were used to assess changes in mood symptoms. Side effect outcomes were measured. Data was analyzed using last observation carried forward methodology and Analysis of Variance. RESULTS Twenty patients (15 men, 5 women) with bipolar disorder (10 type I, 7 type II, 3 type NOS) enrolled in the study. Mean endpoint dose was 13.6 mg/d+/-10.0 mg/d. Thirteen (65%) patients completed 6 weeks of treatment. MADRS and MRS scores significantly improved during treatment. 44% of patients who completed at least one week of treatment were considered responders, based on > or =50% decrease in MADRS scores from baseline. Side effect measures were mostly unchanged during treatment. CONCLUSION Depressive symptoms improved in bipolar patients treated with open-label aripiprazole.

A double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study of galantamine to improve cognitive dysfunction in minimally symptomatic bipolar disorder.

Objective: There is increasing evidence that cognitive impairment is common in patients with bipolar disorder. The purpose of this study was to determine whether galantamine augmentation improved cognition in patients with euthymic bipolar disorder. In addition, the effect of galantamine on clinical measures of functioning and psychopathology was assessed. Method: This study was a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel design examining the impact of galantamine augmentation on cognition and other clinical measures in 30 patients during the course of 3 months. Sixteen subjects who completed baseline and follow-up second neuropsychological testing were evaluable (10 with galantamine and 6 with placebo). Results: The galantamine group showed improved performance on the California Verbal Learning Test total learning and the placebo group showed improved performance on the 2 Delis-Kaplan Executive Functioning System trail-making conditions and category fluency. Conclusions: Episodic memory performance was improved in the galantamine treatment group but did not improve in the placebo group. In contrast, performance on 2 of the processing speed measures showed significant improvement in the placebo condition, whereas that of the patients treated with galantamine did not improve. Galantamine may thus have specific benefits for episodic memory, but not processing speed, in patients with cognitive impairment as part of bipolar disorder.

Considering Eligibility for Studies of Deep Brain Stimulation for Treatment-Resistant Depression: Insights From a Clinical Trial in Unipolar and Bipolar Depression.

Background While electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is the most effective treatment for major depression (major depressive disorder [MDD]), deep brain stimulation (DBS) has shown efficacy in patients who have not received benefit from ECT. Studies of DBS are small, and a better understanding of which eligibility criteria lead to exclusion may help achieve a more appropriate balance between scientific rigor and generalizability in future trials. We assessed the rate and reasons for exclusion from a study of DBS for treatment-resistant MDD and bipolar type II (BPII) depression. Methods One thousand ninety-eight adults were screened for a study of DBS for MDD or BPII. Reasons for exclusion were documented. Descriptive statistics were calculated for each reason for exclusion for the entire sample as well as the self-reported MDD and BPII subgroups. Results Ninety-eight percent (98%) of patients screened were excluded. Exclusion due to lack of interest or inability to relocate to the study site was high (41%). Following this, primary reasons for exclusion were lack of prior ECT and presence of psychiatric/general medical comorbidity. Patients with MDD were more likely to be excluded because of inadequate ECT, whereas patients with BPII depression were more likely to be excluded for comorbid psychiatric diagnoses and not meeting minimum severity criteria. Conclusions A surprisingly high number of potential participants were excluded because of lack of adequate ECT. This suggests that many patients self-identifying as “treatment resistant” have not truly exhausted available, evidence-based treatments. Overall exclusion rate was high, with key differences in exclusion reasons between the MDD and BPII subgroups. These findings can inform design of future clinical trials for treatment-resistant unipolar and bipolar depression. Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00367003