William S. Gilmer

Daily left prefrontal repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in the acute treatment of major depression: Clinical predictors of outcome in a multisite, randomized controlled clinical trial

Randomized controlled trials support the antidepressant efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS); however, there is individual variability in the magnitude of response. Examination of response predictors has been hampered by methodological limitations such as small sample sizes and single-site study designs. Data from a multisite sham-controlled trial of the antidepressant efficacy of TMS provided an opportunity to examine predictors of acute outcome. An open-label extension for patients who failed to improve provided the opportunity for confirmatory analysis. Treatment was administered to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex at 10 pulses per second, 120% of motor threshold, for a total of 3000 pulses per day. Change on the Montgomery–Asberg Depression Rating Scale after 4 weeks was the primary efficacy outcome. A total of 301 patients with nonpsychotic unipolar major depression at 23 centers were randomized to active or sham TMS. Univariate predictor analyses showed that the degree of prior treatment resistance in the current episode was a predictor of positive treatment outcome in both the controlled study and the open-label extension trial. In the randomized trial, shorter duration of current episode was also associated with a better outcome. In the open-label extension study, absence of anxiety disorder comorbidity was associated with an improved outcome, but duration of current episode was not. The number of prior treatment failures was the strongest predictor for positive response to acute treatment with TMS. Shorter duration of current illness and lack of anxiety comorbidity may also confer an increased likelihood of good antidepressant response to TMS.

Early experience and depressive disorders: human and non-human primate studies

This paper reviews evidence from both human and non-human primate studies concerning the role of early adverse experiences in the onset and course of adult depressive disorders. Despite accumulating evidence that stressful life events can play a major role in precipitating the onset of depressive episodes in humans, the mechanisms by which early experiences mediate and moderate the risk for later affective illnesses are not fully understood. Experimental paradigms in primates have documented the important role of undeveloped (social deprivation) or disrupted attachment systems (social separation). Effects of early social deprivation can be seen in many domains. Behavioral effects include repetitive idiosyncratic behaviors, increased self-directed behaviors, inappropriate expression of aggressive behaviors, non-modulated patterns of consumption, and inappropriate sexual and maternal behaviors. Cognitively, such animals require longer habituation time for any task and demonstrate increased perseverance on tasks following non-reward. Physiological effects include an altered hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal response to stress, changes in diurnal temperature regulation, and alterations in immune function. Neurochemical effects include abnormalities in noradrenergic, serotonergic, and dopaminergic systems. Even neuroanatomical changes following early social deprivation have been reported. Studies with primates have also confirmed that early maternal and peer separations are major behavioral and neurobiological events with both short- and long-term consequences that parallel human depression. Future utilization of experimental paradigms in non-human primates may assist in better understanding the role of early experiences in predisposing to the development of affective illnesses in humans. This review concludes by presenting a model for understanding a developmentally based vulnerability to adult depressions.

Factors associated with chronic depressive episodes: A preliminary report from the STAR-D project

Objective:  To identify baseline sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with a current chronic major depressive episode (MDE).

Comparative effectiveness of biomarkers and clinical indicators for predicting outcomes of SSRI treatment in Major Depressive Disorder: results of the BRITE-MD study.

Patients with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) may not respond to antidepressants for 8 weeks or longer. A biomarker that predicted treatment effectiveness after only 1 week could be clinically useful. We examined a frontal quantitative electroencephalographic (QEEG) biomarker, the Antidepressant Treatment Response (ATR) index, as a predictor of response to escitalopram, and compared ATR with other putative predictors. Three hundred seventy-five subjects meeting DSM-IV criteria for MDD had a baseline QEEG study. After 1 week of treatment with escitalopram, 10 mg, a second QEEG was performed, and the ATR was calculated. Subjects then were randomly assigned to continue with escitalopram, 10 mg, or change to alternative treatments. Seventy-three evaluable subjects received escitalopram for a total of 49days. Response and remission rates were 52.1% and 38.4%, respectively. The ATR predicted both response and remission with 74% accuracy. Neither serum drug levels nor 5HTTLPR and 5HT2a genetic polymorphisms were significant predictors. Responders had larger decreases in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (Ham-D(17)) scores at day 7 (P=0.005), but remitters did not. Clinician prediction based upon global impression of improvement at day 7 did not predict outcome. Logistic regression showed that the ATR and early Ham-D(17) changes were additive predictors of response, but the ATR was the only significant predictor of remission. Future studies should replicate these results prior to clinical use.

Effectiveness of a quantitative electroencephalographic biomarker for predicting differential response or remission with escitalopram and bupropion in major depressive disorder

We examined the Antidepressant Treatment Response (ATR) index as a predictor of differential response and remission to escitalopram, bupropion, or a combination of the two medications, in subjects with major depressive disorder (MDD). Three hundred seventy-five subjects had a baseline quantitative electroencephalographic (QEEG) study preceding 1 week of treatment with escitalopram, 10 mg, after which a second QEEG was performed and the ATR index was calculated. Subjects then were randomized to continue escitalopram, switch to bupropion, or receive a combination of the two. Clinical response was assessed using the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale at 49 days of treatment. Accuracy of ATR in predicting response and remission was calculated. There were no significant differences between response and remission rates in the three treatment groups. A single ATR threshold was useful for predicting differential response to either escitalopram or bupropion monotherapy. Subjects with ATR values above the threshold were more than 2.4 times as likely to respond to escitalopram as those with low ATR values (68% vs. 28%). Subjects with ATR values below the threshold who were switched to bupropion treatment were 1.9 times as likely to respond to bupropion alone as those who remained on escitalopram treatment (53% vs. 28%). The ATR index did not provide a useful prediction of response to combination treatment. The ATR index may prove useful in predicting responsiveness to different antidepressant medications.

Durability of clinical benefit with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in the treatment of pharmacoresistant major depression: assessment of relapse during a 6-month, multisite, open-label study

BACKGROUND Although transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) can be an effective acute antidepressant treatment, few studies systematically examine persistence of benefit. OBJECTIVE We assessed the durability of antidepressant effect after acute response to TMS in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) using protocol-specified maintenance antidepressant monotherapy. METHODS Three hundred one patients were randomly assigned to active or sham TMS in a 6-week, controlled trial. Nonresponders could enroll in a second, 6-week, open-label study. Patients who met criteria for partial response (i.e., >25% decrease from the baseline HAMD 17) during either the sham-controlled or open-label study (n = 142) were tapered off TMS over 3 weeks, while simultaneously starting maintenance antidepressant monotherapy. Patients were then followed for 24 weeks in a naturalistic follow-up study examining the long-term durability of TMS. During this durability study, TMS was readministered if patients met prespecified criteria for symptom worsening (i.e., a change of at least one point on the CGI-S scale for 2 consecutive weeks). Relapse was the primary outcome measure. RESULTS Ten of 99 (10%; Kaplan-Meier survival estimate = 12.9%) patients relapsed. Thirty-eight (38.4%) patients met criteria for symptom worsening and 32/38 (84.2%) reachieved symptomatic benefit with adjunctive TMS. Safety and tolerability were similar to acute TMS monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS These initial data suggest that the therapeutic effects of TMS are durable and that TMS may be successfully used as an intermittent rescue strategy to preclude impending relapse.

Painful physical symptoms and treatment outcome in major depressive disorder: a STAR*D (Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression) report

BACKGROUND Painful physical symptoms (PPS) are both common and reduce the likelihood of remission in major depressive disorder (MDD), based upon results of clinical trials in selected populations. Whether PPS significantly contribute to poorer treatment outcome overall in primary or specialty psychiatric care settings remains unclear. METHOD Out-patients (n=2876) with MDD were treated in the first step of the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) trial with citalopram up to 60 mg/day for up to 14 weeks. Presence of painful symptoms, as well as severity of depression, physical illness, and demographic and treatment factors were examined. Time to and overall rates of remission were analysed in relation to the presence of PPS. RESULTS Of the participants, 80% complained of PPS. These patients, both in primary and specialty psychiatric settings, had significantly lower remission rates and took longer to remit. Increasing severity of PPS was associated with greater physical illness burden, lower socio-economic status, absence of private insurance and being female, African-American or Hispanic. After adjustment for these factors, patients with PPS no longer had significantly poorer treatment outcomes. CONCLUSIONS Presence and severity of PPS is an indicator of MDD that may have poorer treatment outcome with an initial selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. These poorer treatment outcomes are multifactorial, however, and are not explained by the presence and severity of pain per se.

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

Is prior course of illness relevant to acute or longer-term outcomes in depressed out-patients? A STAR*D report

BACKGROUND Major depressive disorder (MDD) is commonly chronic and/or recurrent. We aimed to determine whether a chronic and/or recurrent course of MDD is associated with acute and longer-term MDD treatment outcomes. METHOD This cohort study recruited out-patients aged 18-75 years with non-psychotic MDD from 18 primary and 23 psychiatric care clinics across the USA. Participants were grouped as: chronic (index episode >2 years) and recurrent (n = 398); chronic non-recurrent (n=257); non-chronic recurrent (n=1614); and non-chronic non-recurrent (n = 387). Acute treatment was up to 14 weeks of citalopram (≤ 60 mg/day) with up to 12 months of follow-up treatment. The primary outcomes for this report were remission [16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology - Self-Rated (QIDS-SR(16)) ≤ 5] or response (≥ 50% reduction from baseline in QIDS-SR(16)) and time to first relapse [first QIDS-SR16 by Interactive Voice Response (IVR) ≥ 11]. RESULTS Most participants (85%) had a chronic and/or recurrent course; 15% had both. Chronic index episode was associated with greater sociodemographic disadvantage. Recurrent course was associated with earlier age of onset and greater family histories of depression and substance abuse. Remission rates were lowest and slowest for those with chronic index episodes. For participants in remission entering follow-up, relapse was most likely for the chronic and recurrent group, and least likely for the non-chronic, non-recurrent group. For participants not in remission when entering follow-up, prior course was unrelated to relapse. CONCLUSIONS Recurrent MDD is the norm for out-patients, of whom 15% also have a chronic index episode. Chronic and recurrent course of MDD may be useful in predicting acute and long-term MDD treatment outcomes.

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.