World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) guidelines for treatment of anxiety, obsessive-compulsive and posttraumatic stress disorders - Version 3. Part II: OCD and PTSD.

AIM: This is the third version of the guideline of the World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) Task Force for the Pharmacological Treatment of Anxiety, Obsessive-Compulsive and Posttraumatic Stress Disorders which was published in 2002 and revised in 2008. METHOD: A consensus panel of 34 international experts representing 22 countries developed recommendations based on efficacy and acceptability of the treatments. In this version, not only medications but also psychotherapies and other non-pharmacological interventions were evaluated, applying the same rigorous methods that are standard for the assessment of medication treatments. RESULT: The present paper (Part II) contains recommendations based on published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for the treatment of OCD (n = 291) and PTSD (n = 234) in children, adolescents, and adults. The accompanying paper (Part I) contains the recommendations for the treatment of anxiety disorders.For OCD, first-line treatments are selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT). Internet-CBT was also superior to active controls. Several second-line medications are available, including clomipramine. For treatment-resistant cases, several options are available, including augmentation of SSRI treatment with antipsychotics and other drugs.Other non-pharmacological treatments, including repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), deep brain stimulation (DBS) and others were also evaluated.For PTSD, SSRIs and the SNRI venlafaxine are first-line treatments. CBT is the psychotherapy modality with the best body of evidence. For treatment-unresponsive patients, augmentation of SSRI treatment with antipsychotics may be an option. CONCLUSION: OCD and PTSD can be effectively treated with CBT and medications.

Do side effects of antidepressants impact efficacy estimates based on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale? A pooled patient-level analysis.

The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) measures symptoms that may overlap with common antidepressant side effects (e.g., sexual dysfunction), thus making it possible that side effects of antidepressant treatment are erroneously rated as symptoms of depression, and vice versa. This study uses patient-level data from previously conducted antidepressant treatment trials to assess whether side effect ratings co-vary with HDRS-17 ratings. Data from all HDRS-17-rated, industry-sponsored pre- and post-marketing trials (n = 4647) comparing the serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor, duloxetine, to placebo and/or to a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor were pooled; three studies, which utilised sub-therapeutic doses, did not have symptom-level ratings available and could not be included. Severity was assessed for side effects related to sleep, somatic anxiety, gastrointestinal function, and sexual dysfunction. Analysis of covariance was used to assess the relation between these side effects and ratings of relevant HDRS-17-derived outcome parameters. Side effects related to sleep, somatic anxiety and sexual dysfunction significantly and exclusively associated with higher scores on HDRS-17 items measuring the corresponding domains. Side effects related to gastrointestinal function associated with higher HDRS-17 item scores on all assessed domains. Treatment outcome was significantly related to side effect severity when assessed using HDRS-17-sum (beta 0.32 (0.074), p < 0.001), but not when the HDRS-6-sum-score (beta 0.035 (0.043), p = 0.415) or the depressed mood item (beta 0.007 (0.012), p = .527) were used as effect parameters. That some HDRS-17 items co-vary with common antidepressant side effects suggests some of these adverse events are counted twice, potentially leading to an underestimation of antidepressant efficacy.

Baseline patient characteristics associated with placebo remission and their impact on remission with duloxetine and selected SSRI antidepressants.

OBJECTIVE: We examined whether identification of patients with placebo-remitter characteristics and placebo-nonremitter characteristics enhances the ability to identify drug-placebo treatment differences and, perhaps, differences between agents in major depressive disorder (MDD). We hypothesized: 1) that drug-placebo differences in remission rates would be greater for both duloxetine and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) among placebo nonremitters than placebo remitters and: 2) that the difference between active treatments would also be greater in placebo nonremitters than placebo remitters. DATA AND METHODS: Data were obtained from seven randomized, parallel, double-blind MDD studies which compared the effects of duloxetine (N = 795), placebo (N = 510), and SSRIs (N = 551). The 17-item Hamilton depression rating scale (HAMD) was used to assess depression severity. The classification of participants as having placebo-remitter or placebo-nonremitter characteristics was based on age, duration of current MDD episode, HAMD anxiety score, and HAMD core score. Odds ratios (ORs) for remission comparing active treatment and placebo were obtained from logistic regression models. Tests of homogeneity were used for between-group comparisons. RESULTS: For placebo nonremitters, both duloxetine (OR = 3.52 [95% CI: 2.21, 5.62; P < 0.0001]) and SSRIs (OR = 2.38 [95% CI: 1.45, 3.89; P = 0.0006]) showed significantly higher remission rates compared to placebo. Drug-placebo differences in remission were significantly greater for placebo nonremitters than for placebo remitters for both duloxetine (P = 0.02) and SSRIs (P = 0.049). For placebo remitters, remission with duloxetine (OR = 1.83 [95% CI: 1.35, 2.47; P = 0.0001]), but not the SSRIs selected for this study (OR = 1.31 [95% CI: 0.93, 1.84; P = 0.12]), was significantly greater than placebo. Contrary to expectation, the advantage of duloxetine over the SSRIs was not greater in placebo nonremitters. However, the fact that our analysis required patient-level data limited the number of agents studied, compromising generalization. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that drug-placebo differences in remission rates will be greater in subjects with placebo-nonremitter than with placebo-remitter characteristics.