Treatment-resistant depression: definitions, review of the evidence, and algorithmic approach.

BACKGROUND: Most adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) fail to achieve remission with index pharmacological treatment. Moreover, at least half will not achieve and sustain remission following multiple pharmacological approaches. Herein, we succinctly review treatment modalities proven effective in treatment-resistant depression (TRD). METHODS: We conducted a review of computerized databases (PubMed, Google Scholar) from 1980 to April 2013. Articles selected for review were based on author consensus, adequacy of sample size, the use of a standardized experimental procedure, validated assessment measures and overall manuscript quality. RESULTS: The evidence base supporting augmentation of conventional antidepressants with atypical antipsychotics (i.e., aripiprazole, quetiapine, and olanzapine) is the most extensive and rigorous of all pharmacological approaches in TRD. Emerging evidence supports the use of some psychostimulants (i.e., lisdexamfetamine) as well as aerobic exercise. In addition, treatments informed by pathogenetic disease models provide preliminary evidence for the efficacy of immune-inflammatory based therapies and metabolic interventions. Manual based psychotherapies remain a treatment option, with the most compelling evidence for cognitive behavioral therapy. Disparate neurostimulation strategies are also available for individuals insufficiently responsive to pharmacotherapy and/or psychosocial interventions. LIMITATIONS: Compared to non-treatment-resistant depression, TRD has been less studied. Most clinical studies on TRD have focused on pharmacotherapy-resistant depression, with relatively fewer studies evaluating "next choice" treatments in individuals who do not initially respond to psychosocial and/or neurostimulatory treatments. CONCLUSION: The pathoetiological heterogeneity of MDD/TRD invites the need for mechanistically dissimilar, and empirically validated, treatment approaches for TRD.

Clinical effectiveness: the importance of psychosocial functioning outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is associated with significant impairment in quality of life and psychosocial functioning, including social and occupational/role functioning. Evaluation of clinical effectiveness of treatments for depression must include improvement in these important functional outcomes. However, clinical trials for depression have primarily focused on reduction in symptoms, as measured by symptom severity scales such as the HDRS and MADRS or by standard definitions of response and remission. METHOD: The rationale and necessity for accessing both symptom and functional outcomes in clinical trials for MDD are reviewed, and examples of validated scales for measuring QoL and social and occupational functioning are provided. RESULTS: Emerging data suggest that treatment effects assessed with functioning scales may differ from those captured by symptoms scales. Many validated scales are available to measure global and specific aspects of functional outcomes, including QoL, psychosocial functioning and occupational functioning. Nevertheless, systematic reviews have shown that functional outcome scales are used in fewer than 5% of trials. CONCLUSIONS: Given the importance of psychosocial functioning for the individual with MDD as well as for society, greater attention must be focused on the assessment of functional outcomes in clinical trials for MDD, as well as in the clinical management of people with depression.

Evidence of a biological effect of light therapy on the retina of patients with seasonal affective disorder.

BACKGROUND: Retinal sensitivity anomalies have been reported in patients affected by seasonal affective disorder (SAD). We used the electroretinogram (ERG) to assess seasonal change in retinal function in patients with SAD and healthy participants, as well as in patients following 4 weeks of light therapy. METHODS: ERG assessments were obtained in 22 SAD patients (2 men, 20 women, mean age 31 +/- 9 years) in the fall/winter season before and after 2 and 4 weeks of light therapy and in summertime. Matched healthy participants (2 men, 14 women; mean age 29 +/- 8 years) were evaluated once in the fall/winter and once in summer. The 29-item Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Seasonal Affective Disorder version was administered. Standard ERG parameters were derived from the photopic and scotopic luminance response functions. Salivary melatonin concentration during ERG was assessed in both groups but during fall/winter assessments only. RESULTS: A significantly lower cone ERG maximal amplitude and lower rod sensitivity was found in SAD patients before light therapy compared with healthy participants. Following 4 weeks of light therapy, a normalization of cone and rod ERG function occurred. ERG parameters in the summer and melatonin concentrations in fall/winter were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Depressed patients with SAD demonstrate ERG changes in the winter compared with healthy comparison subjects with lower rod retinal sensitivity and lower cone maximal amplitude. These changes normalized following 4 weeks of light therapy and during the summer, suggesting that ERG changes are state markers for SAD.

Measuring the severity of depression and remission in primary care: validation of the HAMD-7 scale.

BACKGROUND: Symptomatic remission is the optimal outcome in depression. A brief, validated tool for symptom measurement that can indicate when remission has occurred in mental health and primary care settings is unavailable. We evaluated a 7-item abbreviated version (HAMD-7) of the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17) in a randomized controlled clinical trial of patients with major depressive disorder being cared for in primary care settings. METHODS: We enrolled 454 patients across 47 primary care settings who met DSM-IV-TR criteria for a major depressive disorder. Of these, 410 patients requiring antidepressant medication were randomized to have their symptoms rated with either HAMD-7 (n = 205) or HAMD-17 (n = 205) as the primary measurement tool. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved a-priori defined responses to 8 weeks of therapy using each instrument. RESULTS: Of the 205 participants per group, 67% of those evaluated with HAMD-7 were classified as having responded to therapy (defined as a > or = 50% reduction from the pretreatment score), compared with 74% of those evaluated with HAMD-17 (p = 0.43). The difference between the groups' changes in scores from baseline (pretreatment) to endpoint was significant (p < 0.001), without a main effect of group (p = 0.84) or group-by-time (p = 0.83) interaction. The HAMD-7 test was brief to administer (e.g., 3-4 min for 85% of the primary care physicians evaluated), which facilitated the efficient and structured evaluation of salient depressive symptoms. INTERPRETATION: The abbreviated HAMD-7 depression scale is equivalent to the HAMD-17 in assessing remission in patients with a major depressive disorder undergoing drug therapy.