Nortriptyline for treatment-resistant depression.

BACKGROUND: Up to 30% of patients with major depression fail to respond to an antidepressant trial, with most taking a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) as initial treatment. While the tricyclic antidepressants might be effective for SSRI nonresponders, they have been relegated to third- and fourth-line treatment. This study assesses the efficacy of nortriptyline for patients with treatment-resistant major depression. METHOD: 92 patients with treatment-resistant DSM-III-R major depression, with resistance defined by at least 1, but no more than 5, well-documented adequate trials of antidepressants during the current episode, were treated openly with nortriptyline for 6 weeks. Patients were titrated up to full target doses of nortriptyline within 1 week, with target blood levels of 100 ng/mL. Response was defined as a 50% or greater decrease of baseline 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score. We performed an intent-to-treat analysis with the last observation carried forward. RESULTS: Approximately 40% of patients were responders (N = 39) and 12% were remitters (N = 11) after 6 weeks of nortriptyline. Over a third of patients were unable to complete the trial. CONCLUSION: Nortriptyline was effective for over a third of patients with treatment-resistant depression, and nortriptyline should be considered as potential treatment if patients fail to respond to other antidepressants.

Lithium augmentation of nortriptyline for subjects resistant to multiple antidepressants.

Lithium augmentation, the most studied augmentation strategy for depression, has not been evaluated in patients with a history of non-response to multiple antidepressants. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of lithium augmentation for patients with a history of treatment resistant depression who also failed a prospective trial of nortriptyline. We enrolled 92 subjects with treatment resistant depression. Treatment resistance was defined by at least one, but no more than five, adequate trials of antidepressants during the current episode. Subjects were treated with nortriptyline (NT) for 6 weeks. Those subjects who tolerated NT for 6 weeks and whose depression did not respond (n=35) were randomized to receive either lithium (n=18) or placebo (N=17) augmentation of nortriptyline for an additional 6 weeks. Response was defined as an equal to or greater than 50% decrease in HAM-D-17 scores. After 6 weeks of double-blind augmentation, 12.5 % of subjects responded to lithium and 20.0% to placebo. Our results revealed no significant difference between lithium and placebo augmentation. While lithium augmentation seems to be useful in depression refractory to a single medication in some studies, our data suggest limited usefulness of this option for patients refractory to multiple treatments. More definitive data await the outcome of the NIMH Sequential Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study.

Melancholia and axis II comorbidity.

This study assessed whether the rates of comorbid personality disorders differed between DSM-IV melancholic and nonmelancholic major depressive disorder. We evaluated 260 consecutive depressed outpatients (140 women [53.8%]; mean age, 39.01 +/- 10.4 years) with DSM-III-R major depressive disorder (MDD). MDD was diagnosed with the use of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R-Patient Edition (SCID-P); enrolled patients were required to have a score >/= 16 on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-17). The presence of the melancholic subtype of major depression was determined with the use of a DSM-IV checklist, while the presence of personality disorders was assessed using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R-Personality Disorders (SCID-II). Of the 102 (39.2%) patients who met criteria for melancholic depression and the 158 (60.7%) who did not, there were no significant differences in age, gender, or rates of personality disorder diagnoses. We observed no significant difference in rates of individual personality disorder clusters between melancholic and nonmelancholic depressed patients. Our findings of comparable rates of comorbid personality disorders between melancholic and nonmelancholic depression are consistent with the decision made by the DSM-IV task force to drop the DSM-III-R melancholic feature criterion of "no significant personality disturbance before first major depressive episode" as they challenge the usefulness of trying to establish such absence of premorbid personality features in acutely depressed patients.

Elevated cholesterol levels associated with nonresponse to fluoxetine treatment in major depressive disorder.

Previous studies have suggested that patients with major depressive disorder may have lower cholesterol levels compared to healthy controls. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between pretreatment serum cholesterol levels and clinical response to treatment with fluoxetine among outpatients with major depression. Three hundred and twenty-two depressed outpatients meeting DSM-III-R criteria for major depressive disorder were enrolled in an 8-week, fixed-dose, open trial of fluoxetine 20 mg/day. Nonfasting serum cholesterol levels were obtained for all patients before starting fluoxetine. All patients were drug free for a minimum of 2 weeks prior to the onset of the study. Clinical response was defined as a 50% or greater decrease in the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-17) score at endpoint compared to baseline. Cholesterol levels were classified as either elevated (defined as a level equal to or greater than 200 mg/dL) or nonelevated (defined as a level less than 200 mg/dL). Among the 322 outpatients, 51.6% were classified as having elevated and 48.4% as having nonelevated cholesterol levels at baseline (mean cholesterol level 238.6 +/- 33.4 mg/dL vs. 170.4 +/- 22.2 mg/dL, respectively). Depressed patients with elevated cholesterol levels did not significantly differ in gender ratio but were significantly older than depressed patients with nonelevated cholesterol levels (P <.0001). After adjusting for age, gender, and Body Mass Index (BMI), depressed patients with elevated cholesterol levels were significantly more likely to be nonresponders to fluoxetine treatment than were depressed patients with nonelevated cholesterol levels (P < 0.05). Elevated serum cholesterol levels appear to be associated with poorer response to fluoxetine treatment. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Double-blind study of high-dose fluoxetine versus lithium or desipramine augmentation of fluoxetine in partial responders and nonresponders to fluoxetine.

In a previous study, of 41 depressed patients who had not responded to fluoxetine 20 mg/day, 53% were treated with high-dose fluoxetine (40-60 mg/ day) and responded (i.e., their 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HAM-D-17] score was <7) versus 29% and 25% of patients treated with fluoxetine plus lithium (300-600 mg/day) or fluoxetine plus desipramine (25-50 mg/day), respectively. We wanted to assess whether these findings could be replicated in a larger sample of depressed outpatients. We identified 101 outpatients with major depressive disorder (52 men and 49 women; mean age, 41.6 + 10.6 years) who were either partial responders (n = 49) or nonresponders (n = 52) to 8 weeks of treatment with fluoxetine 20 mg/ day. These patients were randomized to 4 weeks of double-blind treatment with high-dose fluoxetine (40-60 mg/day), fluoxetine plus lithium (300-600 mg/day), or fluoxetine plus desipramine (25-50 mg/day). In the overall group of patients (N = 101), there was no significant difference in response rates across the three treatment groups (high-dose fluoxetine, 42.4%; fluoxetine plus desipramine, 29.4%; fluoxetine plus lithium, 23.5%). Dropout rates were also comparable, ranging from 9.1% (high-dose fluoxetine) to 14.7% (fluoxetine plus desipramine and fluoxetine plus lithium). There were also no significant differences in response rates across the three treatment groups among partial responders (high-dose fluoxetine, 50.0%; fluoxetine plus desipramine, 33.3%; fluoxetine plus lithium, 33.3%) and nonresponders (high-dose fluoxetine, 35.3%; fluoxetine plus desipramine, 26.3%; fluoxetine plus lithium, 12.5%). At the end of the study, the mean lithium level was 0.37 + 0.15 mEq/L (n = 27; range, 0.1-0.8 mEq/L) among lithium-treated patients, and the mean desipramine level was 104.7 + 58.8 ng/mL (n = 22; range, 25-257 ng/mL). There were no significant relationships between lithium or desipramine blood levels and degree of improvement (as measured by the change in HAM-D-17 score). We found no significant differences in efficacy among these three treatment strategies among patients who had failed to respond adequately to 8 weeks of treatment with fluoxetine 20 mg/day, although the high-fluoxetine group was associated with nonsignificantly higher response rates in both partial responders and nonresponders.

Body dysmorphic disorder in outpatients with major depression.

BACKGROUND: Body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) is a distressing and impairing preoccupation with an imagined or slight defect in appearance, with depression as its most frequent comorbid condition. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the rate of BDD in a cohort of consecutive outpatients with typical and atypical major depressive disorder. METHODS: Three hundred and fifty consecutive outpatient subjects with major depression who entered an antidepressant treatment study were evaluated drug-free with the SCID-P, SCID-II, a diagnostic module for BDD, and other measures. Depressed subjects with comorbid BDD were compared to those without BDD with regard to demographics, course of depression, comorbid conditions, and other relevant variables. RESULTS: Twenty-eight (8.0%) subjects had a lifetime history of BDD and 23 (6.6%) had current BDD. Those with comorbid lifetime BDD had an earlier age of onset of depression and longer duration of the current episode, but not a greater number of depressive episodes or greater severity of depression. Subjects with and without BDD were similar with respect to age, gender, and marital status. There was a higher rate of lifetime and current BDD in subjects with atypical depression than in those with non-atypical depression (14.4% compared to 5.1%; chi2 = 6.63; P = 0.01: 11.6% vs. 4.1%; chi2 = 7.02; P = 0.02). Subjects with BDD also had higher rates of social phobia, any eating disorder, and any somatoform disorder but not obsessive compulsive disorder. They also had higher rates of avoidant, histrionic, and dependent personality disorders. LIMITATIONS: As we did not specifically examine bipolar spectrum conditions, the present study cannot address to what extent BDD is comorbid with Bipolar-II disorder. CONCLUSIONS: BDD is frequently comorbid with major depression, is associated with an earlier age of onset of depression and longer duration of depressive episodes, and is found more frequently with atypical than non-atypical depression.