A randomized controlled trial of duloxetine versus placebo in the treatment of nonmajor chronic depression.

OBJECTIVE: Numerous double-blind studies have assessed the efficacy of antidepressants in treating chronic depressive disorder, including dysthymic disorder, low-grade chronic depression. However, there are no double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors in chronic depressive disorder. METHOD: Outpatients with chronic depressive disorder, but without concurrent major depressive disorder (MDD), were randomly assigned to prospective double-blind duloxetine (beginning at 30 mg/d, increased to a maximum dose of 120 mg/d) versus placebo for 10 weeks. Inclusion criteria were current DSM-IV-TR diagnosis of dysthymic disorder or depression not otherwise specified, age 18-75 years, and a Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) score ≥ 12. Exclusion criteria included current major depression. The study was conducted between August 2006 and December 2011. HDRS, Cornell Dysthymia Rating Scale (CDRS), Clinical Global Impressions (CGI), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF), Social Adjustment Scale (SAS), and other assessments were administered at each visit. We hypothesized that duloxetine would be superior to placebo in (1) 24-item HDRS total score, (2) the percentage of subjects classified as responders and remitters, and (3) secondary measures (CDRS, BDI, CGI). Response was defined as > 50% decrease in 24-item HDRS and CGI-Improvement scale score of 1 or 2 ("very much improved" or "much improved"). Remission was defined as HDRS-17 item score ≤ 4 and 0 on item 1 of the HDRS (depressed mood). RESULTS: 65 subjects were enrolled, of whom 57 began medication. They ranged in age from 19 to 70 years (mean ± SD = 41.63 ± 11.22) and included 24 women and 33 men. Baseline 24-item HDRS score (mean ± SD) for both groups was 20.75 ± 4.92. After 10 weeks, duloxetine-treated subjects had significantly lower 24-item HDRS scores than placebo-treated subjects (time-by-drug group effect on analysis of variance: F1,55 = 9.43, P = .003). Responder and remitter analyses significantly favored duloxetine treatment. The response rate was 65.5% for duloxetine versus 25.0% for placebo (χ(2)(1) = 9.43, P = .003); and the remitter rate was 55.2% for duloxetine versus 14.3% for placebo (χ(2)(1) = 10.46, P = .002). After 10 weeks, duloxetine-treated subjects did not differ significantly better from placebo-treated subjects on the SAS (time-by-drug group effect on analysis of variance: F(1,46) = 0.35, P = .555) or on the GAF (time-by-drug group effect on analysis of variance: F(1,51) = .01, P = .922). CONCLUSIONS: Results on the 24-item HDRS, CGI, and CDRS suggest that duloxetine is efficacious in acute treatment of chronic nonmajor depressive disorder. Response and remission rates also differed significantly, favoring duloxetine treatment, but BDI, GAF, and social functioning (Social Adjustment Scale) did not. Duloxetine appears to be effective in acute treatment of nonmajor chronic depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00360724.

Escitalopram versus placebo in the treatment of dysthymic disorder.

Numerous studies have assessed the acute efficacy of antidepressants, including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, in treating dysthymic disorder; however, escitalopram, the S-enantiomer of citalopram, has not been studied. Thirty-six outpatients with Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R-diagnosed dysthymic disorder, aged 23-65 years (mean±SD=44.7±11 years), were randomly assigned to double-blind escitalopram (maximum dose 20 mg/day) versus placebo for 12 weeks. Inclusion criteria included age 18-65 years and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) score≥12. We hypothesized that escitalopram would be superior to placebo in the HDRS-24 item total score at week 12. We also hypothesized the superiority of escitalopram over placebo for secondary measures, including the percentage of participants classified as responders and remitters, as well as social functioning (Social Adjustment Scale), clinical global impression-improvement, Global Assessment of Functioning Scale. Participants' baseline HDRS-24 averaged 23.4±5.9. Final HDRS-24 scores at last observation carried forward did not differ significantly between escitalopram-treated (mean±SD=10.88±5.83) and placebo-treated individuals (mean±SD=16.4±6.34) (F=2.82, degrees of freedom=1,32, P=0.10). Significant differences favoring active medication were found on the Social Adjustment Scale and the Clinical Global Impression Severity and Global Assessment of Functioning Scale, but not in the percentages of responders or remitters. A larger study sample or higher escitalopram dose may show more significant placebo-medication differences.

Can telepsychiatry replace in-person psychiatric assessments? A review and meta-analysis of comparison studies.

OBJECTIVE: The authors conducted a review and meta-analysis of the literature comparing telepsychiatry with "in-person" psychiatric assessments. METHOD: Approximately 380 studies on telepsychiatry published between 1956 and 2002 were identified using MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and cross-referenced bibliographies. Of these, 14 studies with an N > 10 compared telepsychiatry with in-person psychiatry (I-P) using objective assessment instruments or satisfaction instruments. Three of these studies compared high bandwidth (HB) with low bandwidth (LB) telepsychiatry. RESULTS: Fourteen studies of 500 patients met inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Telepsychiatry was found to be similar to I-P for the studies using objective assessments. Effect sizes were on average quite small, suggesting no difference between telepsychiatry and I-P. Bandwidth was found to be a significant moderator. Three moderators were tested, effect sizes remained largely heterogeneous, and further analyses are needed to determine the direction of effect. There was no difference between I-P and telepsychiatry between the HB and LB groups, although there are anecdotal data suggesting that HB was slightly superior for assessments requiring detailed observation of subjects. CONCLUSION: Out of a large telepsychiatry literature published over the past 40+ years, only a handful of studies have attempted to compare telepsychiatry with I-P directly using standardized assessment instruments that permit meaningful comparisons. However, in those studies, the current meta-analysis concludes there is no difference in accuracy or satisfaction between the two modalities. Over the next few years, we expect telepsychiatry to replace I-P in certain research and clinical situations.

Rating dysthymia: an assessment of the construct and content validity of the Cornell Dysthymia Rating Scale.

BACKGROUND: Mason et al. developed the Cornell Dysthymia Rating Scale (CDRS), a 20-item clinician-rated inventory, and hypothesized that it may be superior to the commonly-used Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) in assessing the symptoms of dysthymia, a form of chronic depression. The purpose of this study was to compare these instruments in an outpatient sample of dysthymic patients. METHOD: The CDRS and the HDRS and other inventories (including the Hopkins Symptom Check List (SCL)) were administered to 110 patients meeting DSM-IIIR diagnosis of dysthymia. RESULTS: There was a significant correlation between the CDRS and the HDRS at baseline and termination, indicating concurrent validity. Distributional statistics were compared for baseline and termination severity scores, showing that the CDRS has greater severity range scores than the HDRS. Furthermore, results of the DSM-IV Mood Disorders Field Trial suggest that the CDRS has better content validity than the HDRS when it comes to the dysthymic population. LIMITATIONS: The results are limited by the use of a homogeneous sample, the absence of observer ratings of divergent symptoms, and less than excellent validity of self-report divergent symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the value of the CDRS in assessing symptoms of dysthymia.