Predictors and moderators of time to remission of major depression with interpersonal psychotherapy and SSRI pharmacotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Although many studies suggest that, on average, depression-specific psychotherapy and antidepressant pharmacotherapy are efficacious, we know relatively little about which patients are more likely to respond to one versus the other. We sought to determine whether measures of spectrum psychopathology are useful in deciding which patients with unipolar depression should receive pharmacotherapy versus depression-specific psychotherapy. METHOD: A total of 318 adult out-patients with major depression were randomly assigned to escitalopram pharmacotherapy or interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) at academic medical centers at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Pisa, Italy. Our main focus was on predictors and moderators of time to remission on monotherapy at 12 weeks. RESULTS: Participants with higher scores on the need for medical reassurance factor of the Panic-Agoraphobic Spectrum Self-Report (PAS-SR) had more rapid remission with IPT and those with lower scores on the psychomotor activation factor of the Mood Spectrum Self-Report (MOODS-SR) experienced more rapid remission with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) pharmacotherapy. Non-specific predictors of longer time to remission with monotherapy included several panic spectrum and mood spectrum factors and the Social Phobia Spectrum (SHY) total score. Higher baseline scores on the 17- and 25-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scales (HAMD-17 and HAMD-25) and the Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS) also predicted a longer time to remission, whereas being married predicted a shorter time to remission. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study identified several non-specific predictors but few moderators of psychotherapy versus pharmacotherapy outcome. It offers useful indicators of the characteristics of patients that are generally difficult to treat, but only limited guidance as to who benefits from IPT versus SSRI pharmacotherapy.

Clinical characteristics and treatment outcome of depression in patients with and without a history of emotional and physical abuse.

Clinical features and treatment outcome were compared in depressed outpatients with and without a history of emotional and physical abuse (EPA), including childhood maltreatment. Patients were initially randomized to IPT or SSRI and then augmented with the second treatment if they did not remit with monotherapy. Assessments included the SCID-I, the SCID-II for DSM-IV diagnoses, the HRSD, the QIDS and the Mood Spectrum Self-Report (MOODS-SR). Seventy-eight (25%) patients reported a history of EPA; 60 (76.9%) were women. Patients with a history of EPA did not differ from those without on HRSD scores at baseline, but showed an earlier age at onset of depression and a longer duration of illness. The two groups differed on several mood spectrum factors, namely: 'depressivemood' (15.6+/-4.9 vs. 13.5+/-5.4; p<0.004), 'psychomotorretardation' (11.7+/-4.5 vs. 9.6+/-4.7; p<0.001), 'drugandillness-relateddepression' (1.3+/-1.3 vs. 0.6+/-1.0; p<0.0001), and 'neurovegetativesymptoms' (8.3+/-2.6 vs. 6.9+/-2.9; p<0.0001). Patients with EPA had also a significantly longer time to remission (89 vs. 67days, log-rank test, p=0.035). The need for augmentation treatment was significantly more frequent among patients with EPA than in those without. The present study suggests that patients with a history of EPA show a subtype of depression characterized by poor treatment response and more severe neurovegetative and psychomotor symptoms.

Inositol as an add-on treatment for bipolar depression.

OBJECTIVE: Inositol is a constituent of the intracellular phosphatidyl inositol (PI) second messenger system, which is linked to various neurotransmitter receptors. Inositol crosses the blood-brain barrier in pharmacological doses, and has shown efficacy in a small double-blind study of unipolar depression. This pilot study evaluated its potential efficacy and safety in bipolar depression. METHODS: Twenty-four consenting adult men and women with DSM-IV bipolar depression (bipolar I = 21; bipolar II = 3) were randomly assigned to receive either 12 g of inositol or D-glucose as placebo for 6 weeks. Efficacy and safety ratings were done weekly. Thymoleptic medications (lithium, valproate, carbamazepine) in stable doses and at therapeutic levels at study entry were continued unchanged. RESULTS: Two subjects receiving placebo dropped out early due to worsening or non-adherence to the protocol. Among the 22 subjects who completed the trial, six (50%) of the inositol-treated subjects responded with a 50% or greater decrease in the baseline Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) score and a Clinical Global Improvement (CGI) scale score change of 'much' or 'very much' improved, as compared to three (30%) subjects assigned to placebo, a statistically nonsignificant difference. On the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), eight (67%) of twelve inositol-treated subjects had a 50% or greater decrease in the baseline MADRS scores compared to four (33%) of twelve subjects assigned to placebo (p = 0.10). Inositol was well tolerated with minimal side effects, and thymoleptic blood levels were unaltered. CONCLUSIONS: These pilot data suggest a controlled study with an adequate sample size, and the appropriate rating scale may demonstrate efficacy for inositol in bipolar depression. The tolerability and the 'natural substance' aspect of inositol may be particularly appealing to subjects with bipolar depression.