Does dual antidepressant therapy as initial treatment hasten and increase remission from depression?

BACKGROUND: Only 30%-40% of depressed patients remit after 8 weeks of treatment with an antidepressant. We hypothesized that beginning treatment with two antidepressants would improve remission rates. METHOD: Relatively treatment-naive depressed outpatients (with DSM-IV diagnoses of major depressive disorder, dysthymic disorder, or depression not otherwise specified) were initially treated with a combination of escitalopram (ESC) plus bupropion (BUP), using rapid dose escalation to ESC 40 mg/day plus BUP 400 to 450 mg/day by study day 15 in an open-label, 8-week study. Remission was defined as a score < or =7 on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D17) at the end of the study. Recruitment occurred between July, 2003, and June, 2006, and the final patient completed the protocol in July, 2006. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients signed informed consent, 49 of whom received at least one dose of study medication. Of the 49 patients, 28 (57%) were women and 30 (61%) had a current diagnosis of major depressive disorder; the mean age was 38+/-12 years, and the mean pre-treatment HAM-D17 score was 16+/-4. Sixteen (33%) of the patients remitted by study week 2, and 31 (63%) by week 8. Nine patients (18%) dropped out prior to their week 8 visit, 5 of them because of side effects. LIMITATIONS: The lack of a comparison group and the use of non-blind raters are drawbacks of this study. CONCLUSIONS: This open-label study suggests that increased numbers of patients may benefit from dual therapy with ESC plus BUP and that the benefit may perhaps include an increased likelihood of early response. Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/NCT00296712 (Journal of Psychiatric Practice. 2009;15:337-345).

DSM-IV depression with atypical features: is it valid?

Atypical features were incorporated into the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV, 1994) as an illness specifier for major depression and dysthymia. The validity of depression with atypical features was supported by differences relative to depression with melancholic features in syndromal symptoms, course of illness, biology, family history, and treatment response. This paper reviews post-DSM-IV literature relevant to the validity of depression with atypical features. Most studies support the pre-DSM-IV findings. Again, course of illness, biological, family, and treatment differences are shown between melancholia and depression with atypical features. Several biologic studies report nondepressed controls have mean values between depressed subjects having atypical features and other depressed patients. This suggests atypical depression is a distinct depressive group rather than a milder form of melancholia. In addition, some studies show distinctions between depressed subjects with atypical features and those having neither atypical nor melancholic features. As depression with atypical features separates not only from melancholia but also from other depressed groups and controls over a range of meaningful distinctions, we conclude it is a valid clinical syndrome, useful both heuristically and in driving treatment decisions.

Electroencephalographic alpha measures predict therapeutic response to a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressant: pre- and post-treatment findings.

BACKGROUND: There is growing evidence that individual differences among depressed patients on electrophysiologic (EEG), neuroimaging, and neurocognitive measures are predictive of therapeutic response to antidepressant drugs. This study replicates prior findings of pretreatment differences between selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) responders and nonresponders in EEG alpha power or asymmetry and examines whether these differences normalize or are stable after treatment. METHODS: Resting EEG (eyes open and closed) was recorded from 28 electrodes (nose reference) in 18 depressed patients when off medication and at the end of 12 weeks of fluoxetine treatment. Clinical response was assessed by an independent rater with the Clinical Global Impression Improvement scale. The EEG data were also obtained for 18 healthy adults matched to patients in gender and age. RESULTS: Treatment responders had greater alpha power compared with nonresponders and healthy control subjects, with largest differences at occipital sites where alpha was largest. There were also differences in alpha asymmetry between responders and nonresponders at occipital sites. Responders showed greater alpha (less activity) over right than left hemisphere, whereas nonresponders tended to show the opposite asymmetry. Neither alpha power nor asymmetry changed after treatment, and test-retest correlations were high, particularly for alpha power. Alpha power and asymmetry showed reasonable positive predictive value but less negative predictive value. CONCLUSIONS: The findings confirm reports of alpha differences between antidepressant responders and nonresponders and raise hopes for developing EEG tests for selecting effective treatments for patients. The stability of alpha power and asymmetry differences between SSRI responders and nonresponders after treatment suggests that they represent state-independent characteristics.

Early symptomatic worsening during treatment with fluoxetine in major depressive disorder: prevalence and implications.

BACKGROUND: A subset of patients experience worsening of depressed mood after beginning antidepressant treatment, which could represent the natural history of the illness or a treatment-related effect. While patterns of response have been examined as possible predictors of outcome, the clinical correlates and implications of early worsening per se have not been investigated. METHOD: In a post hoc analysis, we studied the clinical correlates of early worsening in a large sample of outpatients (N = 694) diagnosed with a DSM-III-R-defined major depressive episode and treated with fluoxetine (20 mg/day) for up to 12 weeks. We defined early worsening as an increase of at least 5 points on a modified 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (mHAM-D, including reverse vegetative symptoms) compared to the previous visit, and occurring during the acute phase of treatment. The primary analysis compared remission and response at week 12 between those patients with and without worsening. RESULTS: In our sample, 211 patients (30.4%) experienced early worsening of depression. An increase in mHAM-D score at week 2, 3, 4, or 6 was associated with a significantly lower probability of remission and response at both week 8 and week 12, while no significant difference was observed in study discontinuation. Baseline features, including gender, age, mHAM-D score at entry, number of previous depressive episodes, and duration of illness were not associated with the development of early worsening during fluoxetine treatment. CONCLUSION: Early clinical worsening is common and associated with a decreased likelihood of achieving remission.

Predictors of relapse in a prospective study of fluoxetine treatment of major depression.

OBJECTIVE: Loss of response to a previously effective antidepressant is a common clinical problem. Retrospective analyses have shown that the pattern of response during antidepressant treatment (late onset and persistent versus other patterns) can be used to predict relapse during continuation and maintenance treatment and possibly to identify placebo responses to treatment. This study was designed to test the predictive value of response pattern prospectively and to examine the data for other predictors of relapse. METHOD: Five hundred seventy persons with major depressive disorder were treated with fluoxetine for 12 weeks and their pattern of response was determined. Those who responded (N=292) underwent random assignment, under double-blind conditions, to continue taking fluoxetine or to switch to placebo for 52 weeks or until relapse. Survival analysis was used to examine the effect of covariates on relapse. RESULTS: Although fluoxetine was significantly more effective than placebo during maintenance treatment, this chronically ill group had a high rate of relapse. Contrary to previous findings, a pattern of acute response was not predictive of relapse. Chronicity, symptom severity, a neurovegetative symptom pattern, and female gender were all associated with a significantly greater risk of relapse, with no difference observed between fluoxetine and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: The pattern of response to acute treatment appears to be inconsistently predictive of relapse. There is a high rate of relapse with both active medication and placebo in patients with chronic depression. Illness characteristics predict loss of response both to fluoxetine and to placebo. No variable examined was predictive of differential relapse rates between fluoxetine and placebo.

Psychomotor slowing as a predictor of fluoxetine nonresponse in depressed outpatients.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined the utility of baseline psychomotor speed, measured with neuropsychological tests, to predict fluoxetine response in moderately depressed outpatients. The authors hypothesized that since psychomotor slowing in depressed patients has been linked to reduced dopaminergic neurotransmission, patients with slowing would be unresponsive to fluoxetine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. METHOD: After baseline neuropsychological testing, patients were treated openly with fluoxetine for 12 weeks. Thirty-seven patients completed the trial. RESULTS: Compared to the 25 patients who responded, the 12 patients who did not respond to fluoxetine exhibited significantly poorer performance in verbal fluency on the Controlled Oral Word Association Test FAS and in color naming on the Stroop Color and Word Test. In addition, the nonresponders tended to perform worse than the responders on the Stroop Color and Word Test reading subtest and the WAIS-III digit symbol subtest. Differential treatment response was specific to psychomotor speed because responders and nonresponders did not perform differently on tasks of executive functioning, attention, visuospatial functioning, or verbal intelligence. CONCLUSIONS: Psychomotor slowing may identify a subgroup of depressed patients who have a dopaminergic deficit that is unresponsive to fluoxetine monotherapy and who should therefore receive an alternative treatment.

Remission rates with 3 consecutive antidepressant trials: effectiveness for depressed outpatients.

OBJECTIVE: This effectiveness study assessed remission rates in patients who had the opportunity to receive up to 3 antidepressant trials if unresponsive. METHOD: One hundred seventy-one consecutive outpatients entered 1 of 3 studies for the treatment of major depressive disorder (DSM-IV criteria) from January 1999 through December 2001. This group primarily received fluoxetine as a first treatment in trials lasting 6 to 12 weeks (a small number received gepirone). If unimproved, patients received a second or third trial (primarily clinician's choice). A standard criterion to determine remission-a score of 7 or less on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression-was used. In order to contrast remission rates with first-generation antidepressants, patients' outcomes in a previously published study that compared placebo, phenelzine, and imipramine were also examined (N = 420). RESULTS: In an intent-to-treat analysis, 66% (113/171) of patients who were treated with second-generation antidepressants and 65% (275/420) of patients who were treated with first-generation antidepressants eventually achieved remission. CONCLUSIONS: Remission rates in the effectiveness study are approximately 20% higher than the rates usually cited, a result of our choice to examine outcome following 3 treatment trials. This choice is dictated by good clinical practice. The usual procedure when comparing treatment modalities is to assess outcome after a single anti-depressant trial. The cumulative high remission rates suggest antidepressants are effective and should encourage more patients to seek treatment and physicians to develop techniques to improve patient adherence.

Defining the boundaries of atypical depression: evidence from the HPA axis supports course of illness distinctions.

BACKGROUND: Treatment outcome and brain laterality differ between early onset (<20 years) chronically (no well-being >2 months) depressed patients with atypical features (early/chronic atypical) and those with either later onset or less chronic illness (late/nonchronic atypical). Because hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis abnormalities have been hypothesized to distinguish atypical depression from melancholia, we examined whether HPA measures would also differentiate these two groups of depressed patients with atypical features. METHODS: Three-hour afternoon cortisol levels, stimulation of cortisol by afternoon dextroamphetamine, and suppression of cortisol by dexamethasone were investigated in 85 depressed patients with atypical features. The latter group was divided into early/chronic atypical and late/nonchronic atypical based on chart review of course of illness. RESULTS: Patients with early/chronic atypical had significantly lower mean 3 h afternoon cortisol levels (N=21) and 4:00 p.m. post-dexamethasone cortisol levels (N=20) than did those with late/nonchronic atypical (N=43 with afternoon cortisol; N=26 with post-dexamethasone cortisol). Post-dextroamphetamine cortisol levels were numerically higher in the early/chronic atypical group (N=15 vs. 19), but this failed to reach conventional significance (0.05

Substance use disorder comorbidity in major depressive disorder: an exploratory analysis of the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression cohort.

Patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) often present with concurrent substance use disorders (SUD) involving alcohol and/or illicit drugs. This analysis compares the depressive symptomatic presentation and a range of clinical and demographic features of patients with MDD and concurrent SUD symptoms vs those without SUD symptoms, to clarify how these two differ and to determine whether concurrent SUD symptoms may alter the clinical presentation of MDD. The first 1500 outpatients with nonpsychotic MDD enrolled in the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression study were divided into those with and without concurrent SUD symptoms as ascertained by a self-report instrument, the Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire (PDSQ). Of the 1484 cases with completed baseline PDSQ, 28% (n = 419) of patients with MDD were found to endorse symptoms consistent with current SUD. Patients with symptoms consistent with SUD were more likely to be men (P < .0001), to be either divorced or never married (P = .018), to have a younger age of onset of depression (P = .014), and to have a higher rate of previous suicide attempts (P = .014) than those without SUD symptoms. Patients with major depressive disorder who have symptoms consistent with SUD endorsed greater functional impairment attributable to their illness than those without concurrent SUD symptoms (P = .0111). The presence of SUD symptoms did not alter the overall depressive symptom pattern of presentation, except that the dual-diagnosed patients had higher levels of hypersomnia (P = .006), anxious mood (P = .047), and suicidal ideation (P = .036) compared to those without SUD symptoms. In conclusion, gender, marital status, age of onset of major depression, functional impairment, and suicide risk factors differ in depressed patients with concurrent SUD symptoms compared to those without SUD comorbidity.

Dichotic listening tests of functional brain asymmetry predict response to fluoxetine in depressed women and men.

Patients having a depressive disorder vary widely in their therapeutic responsiveness to a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), but there are no clinical predictors of treatment outcome. Studies using dichotic listening, electrophysiologic and neuroimaging measures suggest that pretreatment differences among depressed patients in functional brain asymmetry are related to responsiveness to antidepressants. Two new studies replicate differences in dichotic listening asymmetry between fluoxetine responders and nonresponders, and demonstrate the importance of gender in this context. Right-handed outpatients who met DSM-IV criteria for major depression, dysthymia, or depression not otherwise specified were tested on dichotic fused-words and complex tones tests before completing 12 weeks of fluoxetine treatment. Perceptual asymmetry (PA) scores were compared for 75 patients (38 women) who responded to treatment and 39 patients (14 women) who were nonresponders. Normative data were also obtained for 101 healthy adults (61 women). Patients who responded to fluoxetine differed from nonresponders and healthy adults in favoring left- over right-hemisphere processing of dichotic stimuli, and this difference was dependent on gender and test. Heightened left-hemisphere advantage for dichotic words in responders was present among women but not men, whereas reduced right-hemisphere advantage for dichotic tones in responders was present among men but not women. Pretreatment PA was also predictive of change in depression severity following treatment. Responder vs nonresponder differences for verbal dichotic listening in women and nonverbal dichotic listening in men are discussed in terms of differences in cognitive function, hemispheric organization, and neurotransmitter function.

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.

Placebo-controlled continuation treatment with mirtazapine: acute pattern of response predicts relapse.

Pattern of response to antidepressants has been proposed as a method to identify patients whose improvement is more likely due to drug vs those whose improvement on drug is more likely to be a placebo effect. It is hypothesized that those with 'true-drug initial response pattern' are most likely to benefit from continuation treatment. The relationship between acute patterns of response and subsequent placebo-controlled continuation treatment with the antidepressant mirtazapine is examined. A total of 410 outpatients were treated openly with mirtazapine for 8-12 weeks. Patients who remitted in the acute phase were randomized to continue the same dose of mirtazapine or switched to placebo. Acute phase responders were classified as 'placebo initial response pattern' (early responders and nonpersistent responders) and 'true-drug initial response pattern' (delayed and persistent responders). Of those with a 'true-drug initial response pattern,' 10/40 (25.0%) relapsed with continuation mirtazapine, and 23/41 (56.1%) relapsed when switched to placebo. The difference (31.1%) is significant. Of those with a 'placebo initial response pattern,' 5/36 (13.9%) relapsed with continuation mirtazapine, and 12/39 (30.8%) relapsed with placebo substitution. This difference (16.9%) is not statistically significant. Moreover, the relapse rate for 'true-drug initial response pattern' patients switched to placebo (56.1%) was also significantly greater than for 'placebo initial response pattern' patients switched to placebo (30.8%). It has been suggested that patients with late onset and persistence are more likely to have improved because of drug. This hypothesis gains support from this study because of the different relapse rates of 'true-drug' responders on drug and placebo. The low relapse rate for patients with an acute placebo pattern switched to placebo suggests specific drug effect played a smaller role in their initial improvement.

"Outer-directed irritability": a distinct mood syndrome in explosive youth with a disruptive behavior disorder?

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether "outer-directed irritability," a mood construct from the adult literature, characterizes a subgroup of disruptive behavior disordered children and adolescents previously shown to improve on divalproex, a mood stabilizer. METHOD: A sample (N = 20) of disruptive youth (aged 10-18 years) entering a divalproex treatment study of temper and irritable mood swings was compared to normal controls (N = 18) on measures of aggression/irritability directed against others (externalizing symptoms) and on aggression/ irritability against self, anxiety, and depression (internalizing symptoms). All patients met DSM-IV criteria for a disruptive behavior disorder (oppositional defiant disorder of conduct disorder) in addition to research criteria. RESULTS: "Outer-directed irritability" most clearly distinguished patients from controls (effect size 4.1) and did not correlate with other mood measures. Patients and controls showed no to minimal differences on internalizing symptoms. CONCLUSION: Disruptive behavior disordered children and adolescents characterized by outer-directed irritability exist, can be identified, and should be further investigated, especially since they are potentially treatable.

Do age of onset and course of illness define biologically distinct groups within atypical depression?

Illness course separates patients with atypical depression into tricyclic responders and nonresponders as does perceptual asymmetry. The authors therefore investigated whether the course-of-illness parameters would define groups within atypical depression differing in brain laterality. Patients with atypical depression were assessed for illness course and brain laterality. Two patient groups were defined, 1 with onset prior to age 20 plus a very chronic course, and a 2nd group having later onset or less chronic illness. Patients reporting early onset of very chronic dysphoria showed significantly less right-ear (left-hemisphere) accuracy and also differed in characteristic perceptual asymmetry when compared to patients with later onset or less chronicity. Course of illness may usefully define more homogeneous depressive subgroups within atypical depression.

Background and rationale for the sequenced treatment alternatives to relieve depression (STAR*D) study.

Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) attempts to fill in major clinical information gaps and to evaluate the theoretical principles and clinical beliefs that currently guide pharmacotherapy of major depressive disorder. The study is conducted in representative participant groups and settings using clinical management tools that easily can be applied in daily practice. Outcomes include clinical outcomes and health care utilization and cost estimates. Research findings should be immediately applicable to, and easily implemented in, the daily primary and specialty care practices. This article provides the overall rationale for STAR*D and details the rationale for key design, measurement, and analytic features of the study.

When should a trial of fluoxetine for major depression be declared failed?

OBJECTIVE: Although the newer antidepressants are widely used, little is known about how long it takes to see their full effect. The authors sought to determine how many weeks a fluoxetine trial with no improvement should continue before treatment is changed. METHOD: The data involved 840 patients in a 12-week open trial of fluoxetine, 20 mg/day, followed by a blinded, placebo-controlled discontinuation study. Outcomes at 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 weeks were classified as nonresponse, partial response, response, and remission and were based on Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores. The rate of remission at week 12 was calculated for each group of patients without remission at the earlier time points. The time to relapse during weeks 13-26 of the discontinuation study was examined in patients taking placebo and fluoxetine in relation to status at week 6. RESULTS: Patients unimproved at week 6 had a remission rate at week 12 of 31%-41%. For patients with remission at week 12, level of improvement at week 6 did not affect prognosis in weeks 13-26. Of the unimproved patients at week 8, 23% had remissions by week 12. The week 12 remission rate for unimproved patients at week 4 was clearly high enough to justify continued treatment; the rate for unimproved patients at week 10 was too low. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that nonresponse to fluoxetine should not be declared until 8 weeks of treatment have elapsed. Practitioners should discuss trial length with patients at the beginning of treatment.