Setting Up a Successful Vagus Nerve Stimulation Service for Patients With Difficult-to-Treat Depression.

BACKGROUND: A substantial number of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) do not sufficiently remit after the first lines of antidepressant treatments, making them vulnerable to poor clinical outcomes. Patients who have not had adequate resolution of their depressive symptoms after four antidepressant treatments and/or have been experiencing their current episode of MDD for two years or more (with insufficient responses to adequate antidepressant treatments) should be evaluated for antidepressant vagus nerve stimulation (VNS Therapy). Adjunctive VNS Therapy is a promising long-term treatment option for patients with difficult-to-treat depression (DTD), offering significantly improved remission rates in comparison with usual treatments. However, VNS Therapy requires specialized treatment centers to support patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this narrative review, we aim to outline the necessary steps for setting up an antidepressant VNS Therapy service in an efficient manner. RESULTS: Establishing a VNS Therapy service requires several high-level considerations: initiation of a collaborative multidisciplinary team of health care professionals; developing a surgical pathway for implantation; consideration of reimbursement and health care coverage; setting up a specialist clinic to identify optimal candidates for VNS Therapy; educating patients and their families about VNS Therapy; and training health care providers on patient-specific VNS Therapy treatment and long-term treatment management. CONCLUSIONS: Antidepressant VNS Therapy is a promising treatment option for the long-term treatment of patients with DTD. We have successfully initiated four VNS Therapy service centers for DTD in the United States, Austria, and Germany. Based on our experiences and lessons learned, herein, we have provided advice to psychiatric centers planning to set up a VNS Therapy service for their patients with DTD.

Double-blind, placebo-controlled, proof-of-concept trial of a kappa-selective opioid receptor antagonist augmentation in treatment-resistant depression.

BACKGROUND: Kappa-opioid antagonism may possess antidepressant properties. We assessed, in a proof-of-concept pilot trial among patients with major depressive disorder with inadequate response to antidepressants, the efficacy of adjunctive CERC-501 (formerly LY2456302), a kappaselective opioid receptor antagonist. METHODS: In a Sequential Parallel Comparison Design study, patients were pre-randomized to: a) 10 mg/d of CERC-501 for 6 days, b) 20 mg/d of CERC-501 for 6 days, c) placebo for 3 days followed by 10 mg/d of CERC- 501 for 3 days, d) placebo for 3 days followed by 20 mg/d of CERC-501 for 3 days, or e) placebo for 6 days. RESULTS: The study was terminated early by the National Institute of Mental Health due to slow enrollment (N = 8). The weighted mean difference of changes (drug vs placebo) in the 6-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-6) (primary outcome measure) (1.28), Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) (2.33), Perceived Stress Scale (1.01), Symptoms of Depression Questionnaire (9.17), Positive Affect Scale (PAS) (6.39), Symptom Questionnaire (SQ) Depression scale (2.94), SQ Anger- Hostility scale (1.67), and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Satisfaction with Participation in Discretionary Social Activities (4.67) scores were all numerically but not statistically greater for CERC-501 than for placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Although the small sample size limits the ability to draw conclusions, results suggest that CERC-501 may have antidepressant effects. Additional studies are necessary to further explore these effects of CERC-501.

Clinical characteristics and treatment exposure of patients with marked treatment-resistant unipolar major depressive disorder: A RECOVER trial report.

BACKGROUND: RECOVER is a randomized sham-controlled trial of vagus nerve stimulation and the largest such trial conducted with a psychiatric neuromodulation intervention. OBJECTIVE: To describe pre-implantation baseline clinical characteristics and treatment history of patients with unipolar, major depressive disorder (MDD), overall and as a function of exposure to interventional psychiatric treatments (INTs), including electroconvulsive therapy, transcranial magnetic stimulation, and esketamine. METHODS: Medical, psychiatric, and treatment records were reviewed by study investigators and an independent Study Eligibility Committee prior to study qualification. Clinical characteristics and treatment history (using Antidepressant Treatment History [Short] Form) were compared in those qualified (N = 493) versus not qualified (N = 228) for RECOVER, and among the qualified group as a function of exposure to INTs during the current major depressive episode (MDE). RESULTS: Unipolar MDD patients who qualified for RECOVER had marked TRD (median of 11.0 lifetime failed antidepressant treatments), severe disability (median WHODAS score of 50.0), and high rate of baseline suicidality (77% suicidal ideation, 40% previous suicide attempts). Overall, 71% had received at least one INT. Compared to the no INT group, INT recipients were younger and more severely depressed (QIDS-C, QIDS-SR), had greater suicidal ideation, earlier diagnosis of MDD, and failed more antidepressant medication trials. CONCLUSIONS: RECOVER-qualified unipolar patients had marked TRD and marked treatment resistance with most failing one or more prior INTs. Treatment with ≥1 INTs in the current MDE was associated with earlier age of MDD onset, more severe clinical presentation, and greater treatment resistance relative to patients without a history of INT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03887715.

Efficacy and safety of agomelatine in the treatment of major depressive disorder: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

In this 8-week double-blind multicenter trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of 2 fixed doses of agomelatine in patients with moderate to severe major depressive disorder. Primary efficacy variable was the change in 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D17) total score from baseline to week 8/end of treatment. Secondary efficacy assessment compared the improvements in clinical response and remission (HAM-D17), Clinical Global Impression--Improvement Score, Clinical Global Impression--Severity Score, Hospital Anxiety and Depression (HAD), sleep (Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire), disability (Sheehan Disability Scale), and overall Quality of Life in Depression Scale between the agomelatine and placebo groups. Eligible patients (n = 511; baseline mean HAM-D17 score = 27.0) were randomized (1:1:1) to once-daily agomelatine, 25 mg; agomelatine, 50 mg; or placebo. Agomelatine 50 mg provided a statistically significant improvement in HAM-D17 score from first baseline visit through week 8 compared with placebo (week 8 treatment difference, 2.5; P = 0.004), whereas agomelatine 25 mg did not show (P = 0.505) a significant improvement. Treatment differences for all secondary efficacy variables were also statistically significant for agomelatine 50 mg versus placebo: Clinical Global Impression--Improvement (P = 0.012); Clinical Global Impression--Severity difference (P = 0.003); improvement in HAD total score, 2.2 (P = 0.014); patients' ability to get sleep (P < 0.001); quality of sleep (P = 0.002). Both doses of agomelatine were well tolerated relative to placebo. However, clinically notable transient aminotransferase elevations were observed in 4.5% of the patients in the agomelatine 50 mg group. The results showed significant antidepressant efficacy of agomelatine 50 mg/d, including a positive effect on sleep compared with placebo in outpatients with moderate to severe major depressive disorder.

Prevention of Recurrence After Recovery From a Major Depressive Episode With Antidepressant Medication Alone or in Combination With Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: Phase 2 of a 2-Phase Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Antidepressant medication (ADM) maintenance treatment is associated with the prevention of depressive recurrence in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), but whether cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) treatment is associated with recurrence prevention remains unclear. Objective: To determine the effects of combining CBT with ADM on the prevention of depressive recurrence when ADMs are withdrawn or maintained after recovery in patients with MDD. Design, Setting, and Participants: A total of 292 adult outpatients with chronic or recurrent MDD who participated in the second phase of a 2-phase trial. Participants had recovered in the first phase of the trial receiving ADM, either alone or in combination with CBT. The trial was conducted in research clinics in 3 university medical centers in the United States. Patients in phase 2 were randomized to receive maintenance of or withdrawal from ADM and were followed up for 3 years. The first and last patients entered phase 2 in August 2003 and October 2009, respectively. The last patient completed phase 2 in August 2012. Data were analyzed from December 2013 to December 2018. Interventions: Maintenance of or withdrawal from treatment with ADM. Main Outcomes and Measures: Recurrence of an MDD episode using longitudinal interval follow-up evaluations; sustained recovery across both phases. Results: A total of 292 participants (171 women, 121 men; mean [SD] age 45.1 [12.9] years) were included in analyses of depressive recurrence. Maintenance ADM yielded lower rates of recurrence compared with ADM withdrawal regardless of whether patients had achieved recovery in phase 1 with ADM alone (48.5% vs 74.8%; z = -3.16; P = .002; number needed to treat [NNT], 2.8; 95% CI, 1.8-7.0) or ADM plus CBT (48.5% vs 76.7%; z = -3.49; P < .001; NNT, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.9-5.9). Sustained recovery rates differed as a function of phase 2 condition, with maintenance ADM superior to ADM withdrawal (z = 2.90; P = .004; OR, 2.54; 95% CI, 1.37-4.84; NNT, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.5-6.4). Phase 1 condition was not associated with differential rates of sustained recovery (ADM alone vs ADM plus CBT; z = 0.22; P = .83; OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.52-2.11; NNT, 26.0; 95% CI, number needed to harm 3.2 to NNT 2.8), nor was there a significant interaction of phase 1 condition and phase 2 condition (z = 0.30; P = .77; OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.49-2.88). Conclusions and Relevance: Maintenance ADM treatment, but not previous exposure to CBT, was associated with reduced rates of depressive recurrence. In previous studies, when CBT has been provided without ADM, CBT has shown a preventive effect on depressive relapse. Whether CBT also has a preventive effect on depressive recurrence, or if adding ADM interferes with any such preventive effect, remains unclear. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrial.gov identifier: NCT00057577.

Buprenorphine/samidorphan combination for the adjunctive treatment of major depressive disorder: results of a phase III clinical trial (FORWARD-3).

BACKGROUND: The endogenous opioid system is a fundamental regulator of mood in humans. Previously reported clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of the investigational agent buprenorphine/samidorphan (BUP/SAM) combination, an opioid-system modulator, for the adjunctive treatment of major depressive disorder. We present here a third phase III study of different design. METHODS: Adult patients with major depressive disorder and inadequate response to antidepressant therapy were enrolled in this double-blind, placebo-controlled, placebo run-in study to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of adjunctive BUP/SAM 2 mg/2 mg. Patients with baseline Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score $20 received double-blind placebo in addition to background antidepressant therapy for 4 weeks. Nonresponders were randomized to receive adjunctive BUP/SAM 2 mg/2 mg or placebo for 6 weeks. The primary end point was change in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS)-10 total score from randomization at baseline to the end of the 6-week treatment period. RESULTS: Least-squares mean change in MADRS-10 score at end of treatment was -4.8 (SE 0.67) in the BUP/SAM 2 mg/2 mg group and -4.6 (SE 0.66) in the placebo group (mean difference -0.3 [SE 0.95], P=0.782). There were no differences in MADRS-based response or remission rates. Overall, 42.9% of the BUP/SAM 2 mg/2 mg group and 34.5% of the placebo group experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event during the 6-week treatment period, most of which were mild or moderate in severity. There were no clinically important changes in laboratory parameters, weight, or vital signs and no evidence of abuse potential during treatment or opiate-withdrawal symptoms post treatment. CONCLUSION: Efficacy results in FORWARD-3 measured by change in MADRS-10 score did not meet the primary end point, but postbaseline improvement in MADRS-10 in the BUP/SAM 2 mg/2 mg group was consistent with that seen in previously reported trials. BUP/SAM 2 mg/2 mg was well tolerated.

Efficacy of Esketamine Nasal Spray Plus Oral Antidepressant Treatment for Relapse Prevention in Patients With Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Controlled studies have shown short-term efficacy of esketamine for treatment-resistant depression (TRD), but long-term effects remain to be established. Objective: To assess the efficacy of esketamine nasal spray plus an oral antidepressant compared with an oral antidepressant plus placebo nasal spray in delaying relapse of depressive symptoms in patients with TRD in stable remission after an induction and optimization course of esketamine nasal spray plus an oral antidepressant. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized withdrawal study conducted from October 6, 2015, to February 15, 2018, at outpatient referral centers, 705 adults with prospectively confirmed TRD were enrolled; 455 entered the optimization phase and were treated with esketamine nasal spray (56 or 84 mg) plus an oral antidepressant. After 16 weeks of esketamine treatment, 297 who achieved stable remission or stable response entered the randomized withdrawal phase. Interventions: Patients who achieved stable remission and those who achieved stable response (without remission) were randomized 1:1 to continue esketamine nasal spray or discontinue esketamine treatment and switch to placebo nasal spray, with oral antidepressant treatment continued in each group. Main Outcomes and Measures: Time to relapse was examined in patients who achieved stable remission, as assessed using a weighted combination log-rank test. Results: Among the 297 adults (mean age [SD], 46.3 [11.13] years; 197 [66.3%] female) who entered the randomized maintenance phase, 176 achieved stable remission; 24 (26.7%) in the esketamine and antidepressant group and 39 (45.3%) in the antidepressant and placebo group experienced relapse (log-rank P = .003, number needed to treat [NNT], 6). Among the 121 who achieved stable response, 16 (25.8%) in the esketamine and antidepressant group and 34 (57.6%) in the antidepressant and placebo group experienced relapse (log-rank P < .001, NNT, 4). Esketamine and antidepressant treatment decreased the risk of relapse by 51% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.29-0.84) among patients who achieved stable remission and 70% (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16-0.55) among those who achieved stable response compared with antidepressant and placebo treatment. The most common adverse events reported for esketamine-treated patients after randomization were transient dysgeusia, vertigo, dissociation, somnolence, and dizziness (incidence, 20.4%-27.0%), each reported in fewer patients (<7%) treated with an antidepressant and placebo. Conclusions and Relevance: For patients with TRD who experienced remission or response after esketamine treatment, continuation of esketamine nasal spray in addition to oral antidepressant treatment resulted in clinically meaningful superiority in delaying relapse compared with antidepressant plus placebo. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02493868.

A 5-Year Observational Study of Patients With Treatment-Resistant Depression Treated With Vagus Nerve Stimulation or Treatment as Usual: Comparison of Response, Remission, and Suicidality.

OBJECTIVE: The Treatment-Resistant Depression Registry investigated whether adjunctive vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) with treatment as usual in depression has superior long-term outcomes compared with treatment as usual only. METHOD: This 5-year, prospective, open-label, nonrandomized, observational registry study was conducted at 61 U.S. sites and included 795 patients who were experiencing a major depressive episode (unipolar or bipolar depression) of at least 2 years' duration or had three or more depressive episodes (including the current episode), and who had failed four or more depression treatments (including ECT). Patients with a history of psychosis or rapid-cycling bipolar disorder were excluded. The primary efficacy measure was response rate, defined as a decrease of ≥50% in baseline Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score at any postbaseline visit during the 5-year study. Secondary efficacy measures included remission. RESULTS: Patients had chronic moderate to severe depression at baseline (the mean MADRS score was 29.3 [SD=6.9] for the treatment-as-usual group and 33.1 [SD=7.0] for the adjunctive VNS group). The registry results indicate that the adjunctive VNS group had better clinical outcomes than the treatment-as-usual group, including a significantly higher 5-year cumulative response rate (67.6% compared with 40.9%) and a significantly higher remission rate (cumulative first-time remitters, 43.3% compared with 25.7%). A subanalysis demonstrated that among patients with a history of response to ECT, those in the adjunctive VNS group had a significantly higher 5-year cumulative response rate than those in the treatment-as-usual group (71.3% compared with 56.9%). A similar significant response differential was observed among ECT nonresponders (59.6% compared with 34.1%). CONCLUSIONS: This registry represents the longest and largest naturalistic study of efficacy outcomes in treatment-resistant depression, and it provides additional evidence that adjunctive VNS has enhanced antidepressant effects compared with treatment as usual in this severely ill patient population.

Adjunctive Lanicemine (AZD6765) in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder and History of Inadequate Response to Antidepressants: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study.

The objective of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of adjunctive lanicemine (NMDA channel blocker) in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) over 12 weeks. This phase IIb, randomized, parallel-arm, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted at 49 centers in four countries between December 2011 and August 2013 in 302 patients aged 18-70 years, meeting criteria for single episode or recurrent MDD and with a history of inadequate treatment response. Patients were required to be taking an allowed antidepressant for at least four weeks prior to screening. Patients were randomized equally to receive 15 double-blind intravenous infusions of adjunctive lanicemine 50 mg, lanicemine 100 mg, or saline over a 12-week course, in addition to ongoing antidepressant. The primary efficacy end point was change in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score from baseline to week 6. Secondary efficacy outcome variables included change in MADRS score from baseline to week 12, response and remission rates, and changes in Clinical Global Impression scale, Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomology Self-Report score, and Sheehan Disability Scale score. Of 302 randomized patients, 240 (79.5%) completed treatment. Although lanicemine was generally well tolerated, neither dose was superior to placebo in reducing depressive symptoms on the primary end point or any secondary measures. There was no significant difference between lanicemine and placebo treatment on any outcome measures related to MDD. Post hoc analyses were performed to explore the possible effects of trial design and patient characteristics in accounting for the contrasting results with a previously reported trial.

High-dose sertraline strategy for nonresponders to acute treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder: a multicenter double-blind trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of high-dose sertraline for patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) who failed to respond to standard sertraline acute treatment. METHOD: Sixty-six nonresponders to 16 weeks of sertraline treatment who met DSM-III-R criteria for current OCD were randomly assigned, in a double-blind continuation phase of a multicenter trial, either to continue on 200 mg/day of sertraline or to increase their dose to between 250 and 400 mg/day for 12 additional weeks. Efficacy measures included the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (YBOCS), the National Institute of Mental Health Global Obsessive Compulsive Scale (NIMH Global OC Scale), and the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness and -Improvement (CGI-I) scales. Data were collected from July 26, 1994, to October 26, 1995. RESULTS: The high-dose (250-400 mg/day, mean final dose = 357, SD = 60, N = 30) group showed significantly greater symptom improvement than the 200-mg/day group (N = 36) as measured by the YBOCS (p = .033), NIMH Global OC Scale (p = .003), and CGI-I (p = .011). Responder rates (decrease in YBOCS score of > or = 25% and a CGI-I rating < or = 3) were not significantly different for the 200-mg/day versus the high-dose sertraline group, either on completer analysis, 34% versus 52%, or on endpoint analysis, 33% versus 40%. Both treatments showed similar adverse event rates. CONCLUSION: Greater symptom improvement was seen in the high-dose sertraline group compared to the 200-mg/day dose group during continuation treatment. Both dosages yielded similar safety profiles. Administration of higher than labeled doses of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors may be a treatment option for certain OCD patients who fail to respond to standard acute treatment.

Calming the bipolar storm: treating acute mania and mixed episodes in patients with bipolar disorder.

Bipolar disorder is a seriously debilitating psychiatric disorder that greatly affects patients and their loved ones. Although bipolar disorder is one of the most frequently occurring mental disorders worldwide, many patients, particularly those with mixed mania, remain misdiagnosed. Compared to pure mania, mixed episodes of bipolar disorder present with symptoms that can be more challenging to treat. However, proper diagnosis and early treatment can usually alter the course of the illness, and remission is certainly possible. This expert roundtable supplement reviews the differences between acute manic and mixed episodes in patients with bipolar disorder, explains proper dosing and the advantages of different dosage formulations, and identifies the rationale for monotherapy and combination therapy in these patient populations. The aim is to educate clinicians about ways to diagnose and treat the mood state aggressively and safely, especially in light of the many new treatment options available.

Long-term efficacy, safety, and tolerability of L-methylfolate calcium 15 mg as adjunctive therapy with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors: a 12-month, open-label study following a placebo-controlled acute study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate remission and recovery, safety, and tolerability for up to 12 months of open-label adjunctive L-methylfolate calcium 15 mg. METHOD: Subjects in this analysis were adult outpatients (18-65 years) enrolled from 2 acute, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials comparing adjunctive L-methylfolate and placebo for DSM-IV major depressive disorder (MDD) with an inadequate response to monotherapy selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI). Subjects who completed the acute trial were offered to enroll in a 12-month, open-label treatment phase with L-methylfolate and continued SSRI treatment, with scheduled visits for efficacy, safety, and tolerability every 12 weeks. Subjects were enrolled between September 2006 and February 2010. Efficacy outcomes included predefined criteria for response, remission, recovery, relapse, and recurrence. Subjects treated with adjunctive L-methylfolate 15 mg were included in the efficacy analysis. RESULTS: Of 68 subjects who met criteria for the 12-month open-label phase, 38% (n = 26) achieved full recovery, and none experienced a recurrence of MDD. For subjects entering the open-label phase in remission (n = 11), 91% (n = 10) achieved full recovery with L-methylfolate 15 mg, and none experienced a relapse or recurrence. Among 57 subjects who entered the open-label phase as nonremitted, 61% (n = 35) achieved remission. Of subjects who entered the open-label phase with a response without remission (n = 4), 50% (n = 2) had full recovery, and of subjects entering the open-label phase with no response (n = 53), 26% (n = 14) met recovery criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive L-methylfolate 15 mg/d may be an early option in patients who fail to adequately respond to antidepressant monotherapy, with preliminary evidence demonstrating sustained remission and sustained recovery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00321152.

Vagus nerve stimulation for treatment-resistant depression: a randomized, controlled acute phase trial.

BACKGROUND: Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) alters both concentrations of neurotransmitters or their metabolites and functional activity of central nervous system regions dysregulated in mood disorders. An open trial has suggested efficacy. METHODS: This 10-week, acute, randomized, controlled, masked trial compared adjunctive VNS with sham treatment in 235 outpatients with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder (n = 210) or nonpsychotic, depressed phase, bipolar disorder (n = 25). In the current episode, participants had not responded adequately to between two and six research-qualified medication trials. A two-week, single-blind recovery period (no stimulation) and then 10 weeks of masked active or sham VNS followed implantation. Medications were kept stable. Primary efficacy outcome among 222 evaluable participants was based on response rates (>/=50% reduction from baseline on the 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HRSD(24)]). RESULTS: At 10-weeks, HRSD(24) response rates were 15.2% for the active (n = 112) and 10.0% for the sham (n = 110) groups (p = .251, last observation carried forward [LOCF]). Response rates with a secondary outcome, the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology - Self-Report (IDS-SR(30)), were 17.0% (active) and 7.3% (sham) (p = .032, LOCF). VNS was well tolerated; 1% (3/235) left the study because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not yield definitive evidence of short-term efficacy for adjunctive VNS in treatment-resistant depression.

The Modified Rush Sexual Inventory: preliminary psychometric findings.

Sexual dysfunction associated with psychiatric disorders and the treatment of these disorders can impede a patient's optimal recovery and quality of life. Patients are typically reluctant to report their sexual difficulties. Therefore, self-report measures that comprehensively and concisely assess sexual difficulties are a beneficial contribution to clinical research and practice. The Modified Rush Sexual Inventory (MRSI) not only assesses sexual functioning and satisfaction using a multiple-choice format, but it also includes an introductory section for patients' medical histories and free responses. Though the MRSI has been used in clinical trial research, the reliability and validity of the measure is unknown. This study presents the initial reliability and validity findings of the MRSI.

The pro-inflammatory profile of depressed patients is (partly) related to obesity.

Many people with major depressive disorder (MDD) show evidence of systemic inflammation, including elevations in inflammatory factors, but the cause is unclear. The purpose of this analysis was to determine if obesity might contribute to the pro-inflammatory state in MDD patients. Blood was obtained from 135 MDD patients and 50 controls. Serum was extracted and assayed for interleukin (IL) -1ß, IL-2, IL-5, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-12p70, IL-17, interferon-γ (IFNγ), tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα), C-reactive protein (CRP), leptin, and adiponectin using single- or multi-plex human immunoassay kits. The primary analysis contrasted IL-6, TNFα, and CRP between MDD and control groups with body mass index (BMI) as a covariate. The other analytes were compared in an exploratory fashion. IL-6 (but not TNFα or CRP) showed significant differences between MDD and controls even after covarying for BMI. Obese controls and obese MDD groups were significantly higher in IL-6 than both lean groups, but the two obese groups did not differ from each other. In the exploratory analyses, the IL-2 level showed robust and significant differences between MDD and controls even after covarying for BMI. Both lean and obese MDD were higher than lean and obese controls. Adiponectin levels were also lower in the MDD sample than controls. Prior findings of higher IL-6, and CRP in MDD patients may be explained, at least in part, based on obesity. High IL-2, however, was associated with depression and not obesity. The results have significant implications for the understanding of pathophysiology and, potentially treatment of MDD.

A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Active-Reference, Double-Blind, Flexible-Dose Study of the Efficacy of Vortioxetine on Cognitive Function in Major Depressive Disorder.

This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, active-referenced (duloxetine 60 mg), parallel-group study evaluated the short-term efficacy and safety of vortioxetine (10-20 mg) on cognitive function in adults (aged 18-65 years) diagnosed with major depressive disorder (MDD) who self-reported cognitive dysfunction. Efficacy was evaluated using ANCOVA for the change from baseline to week 8 in the digit symbol substitution test (DSST)-number of correct symbols as the prespecified primary end point. The patient-reported perceived deficits questionnaire (PDQ) and physician-assessed clinical global impression (CGI) were analyzed in a prespecified hierarchical testing sequence as key secondary end points. Additional predefined end points included the objective performance-based University of San Diego performance-based skills assessment (UPSA) (ANCOVA) to measure functionality, MADRS (MMRM) to assess efficacy in depression, and a prespecified multiple regression analysis (path analysis) to calculate direct vs indirect effects of vortioxetine on cognitive function. Safety and tolerability were assessed at all visits. Vortioxetine was statistically superior to placebo on the DSST (P < 0.05), PDQ (P < 0.01), CGI-I (P < 0.001), MADRS (P < 0.05), and UPSA (P < 0.001). Path analysis indicated that vortioxetine's cognitive benefit was primarily a direct treatment effect rather than due to alleviation of depressive symptoms. Duloxetine was not significantly different from placebo on the DSST or UPSA, but was superior to placebo on the PDQ, CGI-I, and MADRS. Common adverse events (incidence ⩾ 5%) for vortioxetine were nausea, headache, and diarrhea. In this study of MDD adults who self-reported cognitive dysfunction, vortioxetine significantly improved cognitive function, depression, and functionality and was generally well tolerated.

Association of obesity and inflammatory marker levels on treatment outcome: results from a double-blind, randomized study of adjunctive L-methylfolate calcium in patients with MDD who are inadequate responders to SSRIs.

OBJECTIVE: Adjunctive treatment with L-methylfolate calcium significantly improved treatment outcomes in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and an inadequate response to antidepressants. This post hoc exploratory analysis evaluated baseline concentrations of cytokines (interleukin [IL]-1α, IL-1ß, IL-2, IL-4, IL-5, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-12p70, IL-13, and IL-17; tumor necrosis factor α [TNF-α]; and interferon γ [IFN-γ]), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), insulin, adiponectin and leptin and body mass index (BMI [kg/m2]) on L-methylfolate calcium treatment response. METHOD: Adults with DSM-IV MDD and an inadequate response to a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) were eligible. Patients were randomized 3:3:2 according to the sequential parallel comparison design to placebo versus placebo, placebo versus L-methylfolate calcium (15 mg/d), or L-methylfolate calcium versus L-methylfolate calcium (15 mg/d) during two 30-day phases. The primary outcome was change on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17). Treatment effect with 95% CIs was estimated from baseline concentrations of individual biomarkers and combinations. Cytokines were measured by immunoassay; adiponectin, insulin, and leptin by radioimmunoassay; and hsCRP by a standard turbidimetric assay. The effects of baseline biomarker levels (above and below the median) on outcome were analyzed. The first participant was enrolled July 14, 2009, and the last participant completed April 28, 2011. RESULTS: Mean change on HDRS-17 from baseline was significantly improved with L-methylfolate calcium versus placebo (pooled treatment effect, -2.74; 95% CI, -4.99 to -0.48; P = .017) overall and for those with baseline BMI ≥ 30 (pooled treatment effect, -4.66; 95% CI, -7.22 to -1.98; P = .001) but not BMI < 30. Pooled mean changes in depression across treatment for baseline levels of individual markers above median were significant (L-methylfolate calcium vs placebo) for TNF-α, IL-8, hsCRP, and leptin (pooled treatment effects, -4.33 to -3.94 [P ≤ .02]) and for combinations of BMI ≥ 30 with elevated levels of TNF-α, IL-6, IL-8, hsCRP, and leptin (pooled treatment effects, -6.31 to -3.98 [P ≤ .05]). CONCLUSIONS: In this exploratory analysis, inflammatory and obesity-related factors were associated with greater symptom improvement with L-methylfolate calcium. Combinations of BMI ≥ 30 with elevated IL-6, IL-8, hsCRP, TNF-α, and leptin predicted improved response to L-methylfolate calcium in MDD patients with an inadequate antidepressant response. Further studies are necessary to confirm these findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00955955.

Randomized, placebo-controlled trial of nefazodone maintenance treatment in preventing recurrence in chronic depression.

BACKGROUND: Maintenance treatment to prevent recurrences is recommended for chronic forms of major depressive disorder (MDD), but few studies have examined maintenance efficacy of antidepressants with chronic MDD. This randomized, placebo-controlled study of the efficacy and safety of nefazodone in preventing recurrence was conducted for patients with chronic MDD. METHODS: A total of 165 outpatients with chronic, nonpsychotic MDD, MDD plus dysthymic disorder ("double-depression"), or recurrent MDD with incomplete inter-episode recovery, who achieved and maintained a clinical response during acute and continuation treatment with either nefazodone alone or nefazodone combined with psychotherapy, were randomized to 52 weeks of double-blind nefazodone (maximum dose 600 mg/day) or placebo. The occurrence of major depressive episodes during maintenance treatment was assessed with the 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, a DSM-IV MDD checklist, and a blinded review of symptom exacerbations by a consensus committee of research clinicians. RESULTS: Application of a competing-risk model that estimated the conditional probability of recurrence among those patients remaining on active therapy revealed a significant (p =.043) difference between nefazodone (n = 76) and placebo (n = 74) when the latter part of the 1-year maintenance period was emphasized. At the end of 1 year, the conditional probability of recurrence was 30.3% for nefazodone-treated patients, compared with 47.5% for placebo-treated patients. Prior concomitant psychotherapy during acute/continuation treatment, although enhancing the initial response, was not associated with lower recurrence rates. Discontinuations due to adverse events were relatively low for both nefazodone (5.3%) and placebo (4.8%). Somnolence was significantly greater among the patients taking active medication (15.4%), compared with placebo (4.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Nefazodone is well-tolerated and is an effective maintenance therapy for chronic forms of MDD.

Olanzapine versus divalproex sodium for the treatment of acute mania and maintenance of remission: a 47-week study.

OBJECTIVE: Few double-blind trials have compared longer-term efficacy and safety of medications for bipolar disorder. The authors report a 47-week comparison of olanzapine and divalproex. METHOD: This 47-week, randomized, double-blind study compared flexibly dosed olanzapine (5-20 mg/day) to divalproex (500-2500 mg/day) for manic or mixed episodes of bipolar disorder (N=251). The only other psychoactive medication allowed was lorazepam for agitation. The primary efficacy instrument was the Young Mania Rating Scale; a priori protocol-defined threshold scores were > or =20 for inclusion, < or =12 for remission, and > or = 15 for relapse. Analytical techniques included mixed model repeated-measures analysis of variance for change from baseline, Fisher's exact test (two-tailed) for categorical comparisons, and Kaplan-Meier estimates of time to events of interest. RESULTS: Over 47 weeks, mean improvement in Young Mania Rating Scale score was significantly greater for the olanzapine group. Median time to symptomatic mania remission was significantly shorter for olanzapine, 14 days, than for divalproex, 62 days. There were no significant differences between treatments in the rates of symptomatic mania remission over the 47 weeks (56.8% and 45.5%, respectively) and subsequent relapse into mania or depression (42.3% and 56.5%). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurring significantly more frequently during olanzapine treatment were somnolence, dry mouth, increased appetite, weight gain, akathisia, and high alanine aminotransferase levels; those for divalproex were nausea and nervousness. CONCLUSIONS: In this 47-week study of acute bipolar mania, symptomatic remission occurred sooner and overall mania improvement was greater for olanzapine than for divalproex, but rates of bipolar relapse did not differ.