Advances in geroscience: impact on healthspan and chronic disease.

Population aging is unprecedented, without parallel in human history, and the 21st century will witness even more rapid aging than did the century just past. Improvements in public health and medicine are having a profound effect on population demographics worldwide. By 2017, there will be more people over the age of 65 than under age 5, and by 2050, two billion of the estimated nine billion people on Earth will be older than 60 (http://unfpa.org/ageingreport/). Although we can reasonably expect to live longer today than past generations did, the age-related disease burden we will have to confront has not changed. With the proportion of older people among the global population being now higher than at any time in history and still expanding, maintaining health into old age (or healthspan) has become a new and urgent frontier for modern medicine. Geroscience is a cross-disciplinary field focused on understanding the relationships between the processes of aging and age-related chronic diseases. On October 30-31, 2013, the trans-National Institutes of Health GeroScience Interest Group hosted a Summit to promote collaborations between the aging and chronic disease research communities with the goal of developing innovative strategies to improve healthspan and reduce the burden of chronic disease.

REVAMP - Research Evaluating the Value of Augmenting Medication with Psychotherapy: rationale and design.

UNLABELLED: This report presents the rationale, design, and baseline sample characteristics for the REVAMP study. This project is a multisite clinical trial designed to evaluate the efficacy of augmenting state-of-the-art pharmacotherapy with psychotherapy in chronically depressed patients who fail to respond or respond incompletely to an initial trial of antidepressant medication. BACKGROUND: Chronic forms of major depression disorder (cMDD) are longitudinally continuous forms of major depressive disorder (MDD), and may account for a significant portion of the societal burden of disease associated with M D D. Antidepressant medications and depression-focused psychotherapies have been shown to be effective for cMDD, though the majority fail to achieve remission following an acute course of treatment. There is a pressing need to evaluate whether the outcomes obtained from a well implemented medication algorithm combined with depression-focused psychotherapy can significantly enhance outcomes for cMDD. RATIONALE: Although there is evidence for the effectiveness of depression-focused psychotherapy for the treatment of cMDD, this is the first prospective, randomized, controlled trial investigating psychotherapy as an augmentation strategy for patients with cMDD incompletely responsive to a trial of antidepressant medication. SPECIFIC AIMS: The REVAMP study has three specific aims: first, to compare the efficacy of adding psychotherapy to a medication change versus changing medication alone in chronic depressives with partial response or nonresponse to an initial trial of antidepressant medication; second, to test efficacy of the Cognitive Behavioral Analysis System of Psychotherapy (CBASP) as an augmentation strategy by comparing it to Supportive Psychotherapy (SP); and third, to test a hypothesized mechanism of therapeutic action of CBASP by examining whether patients receiving CBASP exhibit significantly greater improvements in social problem solving than patients receiving adjunctive SP or continued medication alone. As a subsidiary aim, the study also compares the effects of the three randomized treatments on psychosocial outcomes. DESIGN: The study involves two 12-week phases. During Phase 1, patients with cMDD receive antidepressant monotherapy selected according to an algorithm that takes into account their prior treatment history. Their pattern of response is evaluated, those with no response at 8 weeks or less than a full response at 12 weeks advance to Phase 2. At the beginning of Phase 2, patients who did not respond to the initial antidepressant monotherapy during Phase 1 are switched to the next medication in the pharmacotherapy algorithm and randomly assigned in a 2:2:1 ratio to one of three treatment cells: 16 sessions of either CBASP (40% of randomizations) or SP (40%) added to pharmacotherapy, or medication alone (20%) with no added psychotherapy. Similarly, patients achieving a partial response during Phase 1 have their initial medication augmented with a second antidepressant agent during Phase 2 and are randomly assigned to either CBASP, SP, or medication alone. Patients who achieve remission during Phase 1 are not randomized to Phase 2, but rather are monitored monthly for an additional 12 weeks. COMMENT: Recent sequential treatment studies have provided state-of-the-art knowledge about the need for multiple steps in order to achieve remission. The current study, therefore, provides an important next step in understanding the role of depression-focused psychotherapy in a treatment algorithm so essential in the management of difficult-to-treat depression such as chronic forms of major depression.

Cognitive therapy versus medication in augmentation and switch strategies as second-step treatments: a STAR*D report.

OBJECTIVE: The authors compared the effectiveness of cognitive therapy and pharmacotherapy as second-step strategies for outpatients with major depressive disorder who had received inadequate benefit from an initial trial of citalopram. Cognitive therapy was compared with medication augmentation and switch strategies. METHOD: An equipoise-stratified randomization strategy was used to assign participants to either augmentation of citalopram with cognitive therapy (N=65) or medication (N=117; either sustained-release bupropion [N=56] or buspirone [N=61]) or switch to cognitive therapy (N=36) or another antidepressant (N=86; sertraline [N=27], sustained-release bupropion [N=28], or extended-release venlafaxine [N=31]). Treatment outcomes and the frequency of adverse events were compared. RESULTS: Less than one-third of participants consented to randomization strata that permitted comparison of cognitive therapy and pharmacotherapy. Among participants who were assigned to second-step treatment, those who received cognitive therapy (either alone or in combination with citalopram) had similar response and remission rates to those assigned to medication strategies. For those who continued on citalopram, medication augmentation resulted in significantly more rapid remission than augmentation with cognitive therapy. Among those who discontinued citalopram, there were no significant differences in outcome, although those who switched to a different antidepressant reported significantly more side effects than those who received cognitive therapy alone. CONCLUSIONS: After an unsatisfactory response to citalopram, patients who consented to random assignment to either cognitive therapy or alternative pharmacologic strategies had generally comparable outcomes. Pharmacologic augmentation was more rapidly effective than cognitive therapy augmentation of citalopram, whereas switching to cognitive therapy was better tolerated than switching to a different antidepressant.

Acceptability of second-step treatments to depressed outpatients: a STAR*D report.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment of major depressive disorder typically entails implementing treatments in a stepwise fashion until a satisfactory outcome is achieved. This study sought to identify factors that affect patients' willingness to accept different second-step treatment approaches. METHOD: Participants in the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) trial who had unsatisfactory outcomes after initial treatment with citalopram were eligible for a randomized second-step treatment trial. An equipoise-stratified design allowed participants to exclude or include specific treatment strategies. Analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with the acceptability of the following second-step treatments: cognitive therapy versus no cognitive therapy, any switch strategy versus any augmentation strategy (including cognitive therapy), and a medication switch strategy only versus a medication augmentation strategy only. RESULTS: Of the 1,439 participants who entered second-step treatment, 1% accepted all treatment strategies, 3% accepted only cognitive therapy, and 26% accepted cognitive therapy (thus, 71% did not accept cognitive therapy). Those with higher educational levels or a family history of a mood disorder were more likely to accept cognitive therapy. Participants in primary care settings and those who experienced a greater side effect burden or a lower reduction in symptom severity with citalopram were more likely to accept a switch strategy as compared with an augmentation strategy. Those with concurrent drug abuse and recurrent major depressive disorder were less likely to accept a switch strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Few participants accepted all treatments. Acceptance of cognitive therapy was primarily associated with sociodemographic characteristics, while acceptance of a treatment switch was associated with the results of the initial treatment.

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=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.

Design of Depression in Alzheimer's Disease Study-2.

OBJECTIVE: Research on the efficacy of antidepressant therapy for depressive symptoms in Alzheimer disease has been hampered by lack of systematic diagnosis, small sample sizes, and short-term follow up. To address these issues, the authors present the design of the Depression in Alzheimer's Disease Study-2 (DIADS-2), a randomized, placebo-controlled multicenter trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor sertraline for the treatment of depression in people with Alzheimer disease. METHODS: The authors present and discuss the following important aspects of the design: the inclusion of structured psychosocial therapy for the caregivers of all participants; the measurement not only of patient mood outcomes, but also of global and functional outcomes for patients and mood and burden outcomes for caregivers; the ongoing rating of multiple diagnostic criteria to allow nosologic study of depression in Alzheimer disease; the evaluation of both short-term efficacy and longer-term outcomes; the follow up of all patients regardless of whether they complete study treatment; and the unmasking of treatment assignment at the conclusion of each patient's treatment phase. CONCLUSIONS: The authors believe these design elements are important features to be included in trials of depression and other neuropsychiatric disturbances in Alzheimer disease.

A comparison of lithium and T(3) augmentation following two failed medication treatments for depression: a STAR*D report.

OBJECTIVE: More than 40% of patients with major depressive disorder do not achieve remission even after two optimally delivered trials of antidepressant medications. This study compared the effectiveness of lithium versus triiodothyronine (T(3)) augmentation as a third-step treatment for patients with major depressive disorder. METHOD: A total of 142 adult outpatients with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder who had not achieved remission or who were intolerant to an initial prospective treatment with citalopram and a second switch or augmentation trial were randomly assigned to augmentation with lithium (up to 900 mg/day; N=69) or with T(3) (up to 50 mug/day; N=73) for up to 14 weeks. The primary outcome measure was whether participants achieved remission, which was defined as a score < or =7 on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. RESULTS: After a mean of 9.6 weeks (SD=5.2) of treatment, remission rates were 15.9% with lithium augmentation and 24.7% with T(3) augmentation, although the difference between treatments was not statistically significant. Lithium was more frequently associated with side effects (p=0.045), and more participants in the lithium group left treatment because of side effects (23.2% versus 9.6%; p=0.027). CONCLUSIONS: Remission rates with lithium and T(3) augmentation for participants who experienced unsatisfactory results with two prior medication treatments were modest and did not differ significantly. The lower side effect burden and ease of use of T(3) augmentation suggest that it has slight advantages over lithium augmentation for depressed patients who have experienced several failed medication trials.

Tranylcypromine versus venlafaxine plus mirtazapine following three failed antidepressant medication trials for depression: a STAR*D report.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness and tolerability of tranylcypromine and combination treatment with extended-release venlafaxine and mirtazapine in patients with treatment-resistant major depression whose current depressive episode had not responded adequately to treatment in three prior prospective medication trials. METHOD: Adult outpatients with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder who had not achieved remission or had withdrawn from treatment because of intolerance in three previous prospective medication trials were randomly assigned to receive open-label treatment with either tranylcypromine (N=58) or extended-release venlafaxine plus mirtazapine (N=51). The primary outcome measure was whether patients achieved remission, which was defined as a score < or =7 at exit on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D). The HAM-D was administered by telephone by raters to whom treatment was masked. RESULTS: Remission rates were not significantly different between the two treatment groups (6.9% for the tranylcypromine group and 13.7% for the venlafaxine plus mirtazapine group). The mean daily dose at exit for tranylcypromine was 36.9 mg (SD=18.5); for venlafaxine, 210.3 mg (SD=95.2); and for mirtazapine, 35.7 mg (SD=17.6). Tranylcypromine was associated with significantly less symptom reduction and greater attrition due to intolerance. CONCLUSIONS: Remission rates were modest for both the tranylcypromine group and the extended-release venlafaxine plus mirtazapine group, and the rates were not statistically different between groups. The lower side effect burden, lack of dietary restrictions, and ease of use of venlafaxine and mirtazapine suggest that this combination may be preferred over tranylcypromine for patients with highly treatment-resistant depression who have not benefited adequately from several prior treatments.

A comparison of mirtazapine and nortriptyline following two consecutive failed medication treatments for depressed outpatients: a STAR*D report.

OBJECTIVE: Few controlled studies have addressed the issue of which antidepressant medications should be recommended for outpatients who have not responded to multiple treatment trials. This study compared the efficacy of switching to mirtazapine to that of switching to a tricyclic antidepressant (nortriptyline) following two prospective, consecutive, unsuccessful medication treatments for nonpsychotic major depressive disorder. METHOD: Following lack of remission or an inability to tolerate an initial trial of citalopram for up to 12 weeks (first step) and a second trial with either monotherapy involving another antidepressant or augmentation of citalopram with bupropion or buspirone (second step), adult outpatients (N=235) with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder were randomly assigned to 14 weeks of treatment with mirtazapine (up to 60 mg/day) (N=114) or nortriptyline (up to 200 mg/day) (N=121). The primary outcome, symptom remission, was defined a priori as a total exit score of /=50% reduction in score from baseline). RESULTS: For mirtazapine, remission rates were 12.3% and 8.0% per the Hamilton and QIDS-SR(16) scores, respectively. For nortriptyline, remission rates were 19.8% and 12.4%, respectively. QIDS-SR(16) response rates were 13.4% for mirtazapine and 16.5% for nortriptyline. Neither response nor remission rates statistically differed by treatment, nor did these two treatments differ in tolerability or adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Switching to a third antidepressant monotherapy regimen after two consecutive unsuccessful antidepressant trials resulted in low remission rates (<20%) among patients with major depressive disorder.

Bupropion-SR, sertraline, or venlafaxine-XR after failure of SSRIs for depression.

BACKGROUND: After unsuccessful treatment for depression with a selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), it is not known whether switching to one antidepressant is more effective than switching to another. METHODS: We randomly assigned 727 adult outpatients with a nonpsychotic major depressive disorder who had no remission of symptoms or could not tolerate the SSRI citalopram to receive one of the following drugs for up to 14 weeks: sustained-release bupropion (239 patients) at a maximal daily dose of 400 mg, sertraline (238 patients) at a maximal daily dose of 200 mg, or extended-release venlafaxine (250 patients) at a maximal daily dose of 375 mg. The study was conducted in 18 primary and 23 psychiatric care settings. The primary outcome was symptom remission, defined by a total score of 7 or less on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD-17) at the end of the study. Scores on the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology - Self Report (QIDS-SR-16), obtained at treatment visits, determined secondary outcomes, including remission (a score of 5 or less at exit) and response (a reduction of 50 percent or more on baseline scores). RESULTS: Remission rates as assessed by the HRSD-17 and the QIDS-SR-16, respectively, were 21.3 percent and 25.5 percent for sustained-release bupropion, 17.6 percent and 26.6 percent for sertraline, and 24.8 percent and 25.0 percent for extended-release venlafaxine. QIDS-SR-16 response rates were 26.1 percent for sustained-release bupropion, 26.7 percent for sertraline, and 28.2 percent for extended-release venlafaxine. These treatments did not differ significantly with respect to outcomes, tolerability, or adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: After unsuccessful treatment with an SSRI, approximately one in four patients had a remission of symptoms after switching to another antidepressant. Any one of the medications in the study provided a reasonable second-step choice for patients with depression. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00021528.).

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.

Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance consensus statement on the unmet needs in diagnosis and treatment of mood disorders in late life.

OBJECTIVES: To review progress made during the past decade in late-life mood disorders and to identify areas of unmet need in health care delivery and research. PARTICIPANTS: The Consensus Development Panel consisted of experts in late-life mood disorders, geriatrics, primary care, mental health and aging policy research, and advocacy. EVIDENCE: (1) Literature reviews addressing risk factors, prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and delivery of services and (2) opinions and experiences of primary care and mental health care providers, policy analysts, and advocates. CONSENSUS PROCESS: The Consensus Development Panel listened to presentations and participated in discussions. Workgroups considered the evidence and prepared preliminary statements. Workgroup leaders presented drafts for discussion by the Consensus Development Panel. The final document was reviewed and edited to incorporate input from the entire Consensus Development Panel. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the availability of safe and efficacious treatments, mood disorders remain a significant health care issue for the elderly and are associated with disability, functional decline, diminished quality of life, mortality from comorbid medical conditions or suicide, demands on caregivers, and increased service utilization. Discriminatory coverage and reimbursement policies for mental health care are a challenge for the elderly, especially those with modest incomes, and for clinicians. Minorities are particularly underserved. Access to mental health care services for most elderly individuals is inadequate, and coordination of services is lacking. There is an immediate need for collaboration among patients, families, researchers, clinicians, governmental agencies, and third-party payers to improve diagnosis, treatment, and delivery of services for elderly persons with mood disorders.

Psychosocial intervention development for the prevention and treatment of depression: promoting innovation and increasing access.

Great strides have been made in developing psychosocial interventions for the treatment of depression and bipolar disorder over the last three decades, but more remains to be done. The National Institute of Mental Health Psychosocial Intervention Development Workgroup recommends three priorities for future innovation: 1) development of new and more effective interventions that address both symptom change and functional capacity, 2) development of interventions that prevent onset and recurrence of clinical episodes in at-risk populations, and 3) development of user-friendly interventions and nontraditional delivery methods to increase access to evidence-based interventions. In each of these areas, the Workgroup recommends systematic study of the mediating mechanisms that drive the process of change and the moderators that influence their effects. This information will highlight the elements of psychosocial interventions that most contribute to the prevention and treatment of mood disorders across diagnostic groups, populations served, and community settings. The process of developing innovative interventions should have as its goal a mental health service delivery system that prevents the onset and recurrence of the mood disorders, furnishes increasingly effective treatment for those who seek it, and provides access to evidence-based psychosocial interventions via all feasible means.

Skating to where the puck is going to be: a plan for clinical trials and translation research in mood disorders.

As part of the National Institute of Mental Health Strategic Plan for Mood Disorders Research effort, the Clinical Trials and Translation Workgroup was asked to define priorities for clinical trials in mood disorders and for research on how best to translate the results of such research to clinical practice settings. Through two face-to-face meetings and a series of conference calls, we established priorities based on the literature to date and what was known about research currently in progress in this area. We defined five areas of priority that cut across developmental stages, while noting that research on adult mood disorders was at a more advanced stage in each of these areas than research on child or geriatric disorders. The five areas of priority are: 1) maximizing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of initial (acute) treatments for mood disorders already known to be efficacious in selected populations and settings when they are applied across all populations and care settings; 2) learning what further treatments or services are most likely to reduce symptoms and improve functioning when the first treatment is delivered well, but the mood disorder does not remit or show adequate improvement; 3) learning what treatments or services are most cost-effective in preventing recurrence or relapse and maintaining optimal functioning after a patient's mood disorder has remitted or responded maximally to treatment; 4) developing and validating clinical, psychosocial, biological, or other markers that predict: a) which treatments are most effective, b) course of illness, c) risk of adverse events/tolerability and acceptability for individual patients or well-defined subgroups of patients; 5) developing clinical trial designs and methods that result in lower research costs and greater generalizability earlier in the treatment development and testing process. A rationale for the importance of each of these priorities is provided.