Demographic variables, design characteristics, and effect sizes of randomized, placebo-controlled, monotherapy trials of major depressive disorder and bipolar depression.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this work is to compare the efficacy of pharmacologic agents for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) and bipolar depression. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE/PubMed databases were searched for studies published in English between January 1980 and September 2014 by cross-referencing the search term placebo with each of the antidepressant agents identified and with bipolar. The search was supplemented by manual bibliography review. STUDY SELECTION: We selected double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of antidepressant monotherapies for the treatment of MDD and of oral drug monotherapies for the treatment of bipolar depression. 196 trials in MDD and 19 trials in bipolar depression were found eligible for inclusion in our analysis. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted by one of the authors and checked for accuracy by a second one. Data extracted included year of publication, number of patients randomized, probability of receiving placebo, duration of the trial, baseline symptom severity, dosing schedule, study completion rates, and clinical response rates. RESULTS: Response rates for drug versus placebo in trials of MDD and bipolar depression were 52.7% versus 37.5% and 54.7% versus 40.5%, respectively. The random-effects meta-analysis indicated that drug therapy was more effective than placebo in both MDD (risk ratio for response = 1.373; P < .001) and bipolar depression (risk ratio = 1.257; P < .001) trials. The meta-regression analysis suggested a statistically significant difference in the risk ratio of responding to drug versus placebo between MDD and bipolar depression trials in favor of MDD (P = .008). CONCLUSIONS: Although a statistically significantly greater treatment effect size was noted in MDD relative to bipolar depression studies, the absolute magnitude of the difference was numerically small. Therefore, the present study suggests no clinically significant differences in the overall short-term efficacy of pharmacologic monotherapies for MDD and bipolar depression.

The Effectiveness of Telepsychiatry-Based Culturally Sensitive Collaborative Treatment for Depressed Chinese American Immigrants: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the effectiveness of a telepsychiatry-based culturally sensitive collaborative treatment (T-CSCT) intervention to improve treatment outcomes for depressed Chinese American immigrants. METHODS: Participants were Chinese Americans recruited from primary care settings from February 1, 2009, to July 31, 2012, with DSM-IV major depressive disorder (MDD) identified by the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview. Eligible patients were randomized to receive either T-CSCT or treatment as usual (TAU) for 6 months. T-CSCT involves (1) cultural consultation via videoconference and (2) care management. The primary outcome measure was the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS17); positive response was defined as a ≥ 50% decrease in HDRS17 score, and remission was defined as HDRS17 score ≤ 7. Secondary outcome measures were the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) and Improvement (CGI-I) scales and the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (Q-LES-Q). Outcomes were compared using multivariate logistic regression and mixed-model for repeated measures methods. RESULTS: Among participants (N = 190), 63% were female, and the mean (SD) age was 50 (14.5) years. They were randomized to T-CSCT (n = 97; 51%) or TAU (n = 93; 49%). Using multivariate logistic regression analyses, the odds of achieving response and remission were significantly greater for the T-CSCT group compared to the control group (odds ratio [OR] = 3.9 [95% CI, 1.9 to 7.8] and 4.4 [95% CI, 1.9 to 9.9], respectively). Multivariate general linear model analyses showed that patients in the T-CSCT group had significantly greater improvement over time in HDRS17 (F4,95 = 4.59, P = .002), CGI-S (F4,95 = 4.22, P = .003), and CGI-I (F4,95 = 2.95, P = .02) scores. CONCLUSIONS: T-CSCT is effective in improving treatment outcomes of Chinese immigrants with MDD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClincialTrials.gov identifier: NCT00854542.

Reward Responsiveness Varies by Smoking Status in Women with a History of Major Depressive Disorder.

Major depressive disorder (MDD) and nicotine dependence are highly comorbid, with studies showing that ~50% of individuals with MDD smoke. The link between these disorders persists even after the clinical symptoms of depression subside, as indicated by high levels of nicotine dependence among individuals with remitted depression (rMDD). Recent evidence indicates that individuals with rMDD show blunted responses to reward as measured by a probabilistic reward task (PRT), which assesses the ability to modify behavior as a function of reward history. Given nicotine's ability to enhance reward responsiveness, individuals with rMDD might smoke to address this persistent reward deficit. However, it is unclear whether smokers with rMDD show enhanced reward responsiveness relative to rMDD individuals who do not smoke. To test this hypothesis, we evaluated reward responsiveness on the PRT in four groups (N=198): individuals with and without rMDD who were or were not nicotine dependent. As hypothesized, rMDD nonsmokers had lower reward responsiveness relative to both control nonsmokers and rMDD smokers; conversely, smokers with rMDD showed behavioral patterns comparable to those without a history of depression. Given nicotine's ability to enhance reward sensitivity, it is possible that nicotine normalizes the otherwise blunted reward responsiveness in individuals with rMDD. Therapies aimed at enhancing this reward-based deficit may be beneficial in the treatment of both nicotine dependence and MDD.

A double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial comparing eicosapentaenoic acid versus docosahexaenoic acid for depression.

OBJECTIVE: To compare 2 omega-3 (n-3) preparations enriched with eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) versus docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) as monotherapy for major depressive disorder (MDD) in a 2-site, placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind clinical trial. METHOD: 196 adults (53% female; mean [SD] age = 44.7 [13.4] years) with DSM-IV MDD and a baseline 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) score ≥ 15 were randomized equally from May 18, 2006, to June 30, 2011, to 8 weeks of double-blind treatment with oral EPA-enriched n-3 1000 mg/d, DHA-enriched n-3 1,000 mg/d, or placebo. RESULTS: 154 subjects completed the study. Modified intent-to-treat (mITT) analysis (n = 177 subjects with ≥ 1 postbaseline visit; 59.3% female, mean [SD] age 45.8 [12.5] years) employed mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM). All 3 groups demonstrated statistically significant improvement in the HDRS-17 (primary outcome measure), 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self Report (QIDS-SR-16), and Clinical Global Improvement-Severity Scale (CGI-S) (P < .05), but neither n-3 preparation separated from placebo (P > .05). Response and remission rates were in the range of 40%-50% and 30%, respectively, for all treatments, with no significant differences between groups. One subject receiving EPA-enriched n-3 discontinued due to worsening depression, and 1 subject receiving placebo discontinued due to an unspecified "negative reaction" to pills. CONCLUSIONS: Neither EPA-enriched nor DHA-enriched n-3 was superior to placebo for the treatment of MDD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00517036.