Comparative effectiveness research trial for antidepressant incomplete and non-responders with treatment resistant depression (ASCERTAIN-TRD) a randomized clinical trial.

Further research is needed to help improve both the standard of care and the outcome for patients with treatment-resistant depression. A particularly critical evidence gap exists with respect to whether pharmacological or non-pharmacological augmentation is superior to antidepressant switch, or vice-versa. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of augmentation with aripiprazole or repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation versus switching to the antidepressant venlafaxine XR (or duloxetine for those not eligible to receive venlafaxine) for treatment-resistant depression. In this multi-site, 8-week, randomized, open-label study, 278 subjects (196 females and 82 males, mean age 45.6 years (SD 15.3)) with treatment-resistant depression were assigned in a 1:1:1 fashion to treatment with either of these three interventions; 235 subjects completed the study. 260 randomized subjects with at least one post-baseline Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating (MADRS) assessment were included in the analysis. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (score change (standard error (se)) = -17.39 (1.3) (p = 0.015) but not aripiprazole augmentation (score change (se) = -14.9 (1.1) (p = 0.069) was superior to switch (score change (se) = -13.22 (1.1)) on the MADRS. Aripiprazole (mean change (se) = -37.79 (2.9) (p = 0.003) but not repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation augmentation (mean change (se) = -42.96 (3.6) (p = 0.031) was superior to switch (mean change (se) = -34.45 (3.0)) on the symptoms of depression questionnaire. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation augmentation was shown to be more effective than switching antidepressants in treatment-resistant depression on the study primary measure. In light of these findings, clinicians should consider repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation augmentation early-on for treatment-resistant depression.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02977299.

Success and efficiency of phase 2/3 adjunctive trials for MDD funded by industry: a systematic review.

To review the success rate and efficiency of industry-sponsored phase 2/3 clinical trials for adjunctive therapies for antidepressant partial- and non-responders with major depressive disorder (MDD), a systematic search of Pubmed/Medline was conducted, in addition to abstracts of major psychiatric meeting held since 2010, of randomized, placebo-controlled adjunct oral pharmacotherapy trials in this patient population. Forty-six (n = 33,900; 70 drug compactor arms) trials were pooled, yielding only three approved drugs. Twenty-two (31.4%) drug-placebo comparisons were successful. Numerically, success rates for treatment arms from studies with one versus more than one drug-placebo comparison were higher (39.3% versus 26.2%). The antidepressant lead-in employing single-blind placebo and the sequential-parallel comparison design (SPCD) were successful in 50% and 40% of cases, respectively. The direct randomization (no lead-in) design yielded positive results in one third of cases. The success rate of open-label antidepressant lead-ins without placebo or using double-blind placebo was very poor (<15%). There was also a pronounced discrepancy in terms of efficiency across study designs. Accounting for sample size requirements, a phase 3 program using SPCD would have a higher cumulative chance of yielding two positive trials (50%) than a phase 3 program using a single-blind placebo lead-in (40%). Future programs should carefully weigh the need for a lead-in, which is time-consuming, expensive and, in some cases (i.e., open-label antidepressant without placebo or with double-blind placebo) nearly futile. Instead, more effort should involve the use of studies where patients are directly randomized, such as the SPCD, with more investment shifted towards the accurate and independent vetting of subject eligibility.

Correction: Double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trial of intravenous ketamine as adjunctive therapy in treatment-resistant depression (TRD).

Supplementary Figure 1 and Supplementary Tables 1-4 have been re-uploaded so as to reflect the versions supplied during proofs stage. The publisher apologizes for the error in versioning. The HTML version of the paper has been updated.

Double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trial of intravenous ketamine as adjunctive therapy in treatment-resistant depression (TRD).

Numerous placebo-controlled studies have demonstrated the ability of ketamine, an NMDA receptor antagonist, to induce rapid (within hours), transient antidepressant effects when administered intravenously (IV) at subanesthetic doses (0.5 mg/kg over 40 min). However, the optimal antidepressant dose remains unknown. We aimed to compare to active placebo the rapid acting antidepressant properties of a broad range of subanesthetic doses of IV ketamine among outpatients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). A range of IV ketamine doses were compared to active placebo in the treatment of adult TRD over a 3-day period following a single infusion over 40 min. This was an outpatient study conducted across six US academic sites. Outpatients were 18-70 years old with TRD, defined as failure to achieve a satisfactory response (e.g., less than 50% improvement of depression symptoms) to at least two adequate treatment courses during the current depressive episode. Following a washout period, 99 eligible subjects were randomly assigned to one of the five arms in a 1:1:1:1:1 fashion: a single intravenous dose of ketamine 0.1 mg/kg (n = 18), a single dose of ketamine 0.2 mg/kg (n = 20), a single dose of ketamine 0.5 mg/kg (n = 22), a single dose of ketamine 1.0 mg/kg (n = 20), and a single dose of midazolam 0.045 mg/kg (active placebo) (n = 19). The study assessments (HAM-D-6, MADRS, SDQ, PAS, CGI-S, and CGI-I) were performed at days 0, 1, 3 (endpoint), 5, 7, 14, and 30 to assess the safety and efficacy. The overall group × time interaction effect was significant for the primary outcome measure, the HAM-D-6. In post hoc pairwise comparisons controlling for multiple comparisons, standard dose (0.5 mg/kg) and high dose (1 mg/kg) of intravenous ketamine were superior to active placebo; a low dose (0.1 mg/kg) was significant only prior to adjustment (p = 0.02, p-adj = 0.14, d = -0.82 at day 1). Most of the interaction effect was due to differences at day 1, with no significant adjusted pairwise differences at day 3. This pattern generally held for secondary outcomes. The infusions of ketamine were relatively well tolerated compared to active placebo, except for greater dissociative symptoms and transient blood pressure elevations with the higher doses. Our results suggest that there is evidence for the efficacy of the 0.5 mg/kg and 1.0 mg/kg subanesthetic doses of IV ketamine and no clear or consistent evidence for clinically meaningful efficacy of lower doses of IV ketamine. Trial Registration: NCT01920555.

Body Mass Index as a Moderator of Treatment Response to Ketamine for Major Depressive Disorder.

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) and obesity commonly co-occur. We sought to assess the impact of body mass index (BMI) on the acute antidepressant effects of ketamine in patients with treatment-resistant depression. METHODS/PROCEDURES: Post hoc analyses were conducted from a multisite, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial designed to assess the rapid-onset effects of intravenous ketamine. Patients (n = 99) were randomized to a single dose administration of ketamine 0.1 mg/kg (n = 18), ketamine 0.2 mg/kg (n = 20), ketamine 0.5 mg/kg (n = 22), ketamine 1.0 mg/kg (n = 20), or active placebo, midazolam 0.045 mg/kg (n = 19). Patients were stratified for BMI. For patients randomized to ketamine (n = 80), BMI was assessed as a continuous variable and also categorically (obese, overweight, not obese/overweight [reference]). The primary outcome measure was the change on the 6-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale 24 hours after treatment. Outcomes at day 3 were also assessed. FINDINGS/RESULTS: The 6-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale change scores at 24 hours were inversely associated with BMI (-0.28 ± 0.12, P = 0.02). With BMI operationalized categorically, both obese (-4.15 ± 1.41, P = 0.004) and overweight (-1.99 ± 1.14, P = 0.08) categories were inversely related to the 6-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale change score at 24 hours, statistically significant for the obese category, as compared with the reference group. Similar but weaker findings were observed at 72 hours after infusion. IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS: Higher BMI and obesity were associated with a more robust acute antidepressant response to ketamine. This may have clinical relevance for a great number of patients who have both MDD and obesity. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01920555.

Improvement of sexual functioning during treatment of MDD with adjunctive pimavanserin: A secondary analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sexual dysfunction is common among patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). In the CLARITY study, the safety and efficacy of adjunctive pimavanserin, an inverse agonist at 5-HT2A receptors, were demonstrated when added to existing treatment for MDD. This analysis provides a detailed assessment of the effects of pimavanserin on sexual function from the CLARITY study. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of MDD in a depressive episode, inadequate response to ongoing antidepressant therapy, and a Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score >20 were randomized to pimavanserin 34 mg/day or placebo added to ongoing treatment with an immediate revision of all selective serotonin or serotonin-norepinephrine for 5 weeks (Stage 1), and nonresponders (<50% improvement from baseline in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HAMD-17]) were re-randomized for an additional 5 week (Stage 2). Effects of pimavanserin on the Massachusetts General Hospital Sexual Functioning Index (MGH-SFI) and HAMD-17 Item 14 (sexual interest) were examined. RESULTS: Among 203 patients (51 on pimavanserin; 152 on placebo), pimavanserin demonstrated significant improvement from baseline to Week 5 on the MGH-SFI (least square [LS]mean difference -0.634, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-0.964, -0.304]; p = .0002; effect size [ES], Cohen's d: .614). Across Stages 1 and 2, the weighted LSmean difference was -0.468 (95% CI [-0.720, -0.216]; p = .0003) for pimavanserin versus placebo. Mean changes from baseline to Week 5 for MGH-SFI Items 1, 2, 3, and 5 and HAMD Item 14 were significantly (p < .05) greater with pimavanserin versus placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive pimavanserin improved sexual function in patients with MDD. Adding pimavanserin to ongoing treatment for MDD may be especially useful for patients experiencing sexual dysfunction.

NSI-189 phosphate, a novel neurogenic compound, selectively benefits moderately depressed patients: A post-hoc analysis of a phase 2 study of major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: NSI-189 phosphate (NSI-189) is a novel neurogenic molecule with pleiotropic properties, including antidepressant, procognitive, synaptoplastic, and neurotrophic activities demonstrated in preclinical studies. Its antidepressant activity is monoamine-independent. NSI-189 was previously tested in patients with recurrent major depressive disorder in an inpatient setting. METHODS: This study involved 220 patients randomized to an NSI-189 40-mg dose, NSI-189 80-mg dose, or placebo daily for 12 weeks. The study utilized the sequential parallel comparison design, in which the drug effect was tested in 2 separate stages of 6 weeks each. Herein, post-hoc analyses of the data are presented. RESULTS: NSI-189's antidepressant effect increased when the participants' initial baseline depression severity was dichotomized along a Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score of 30. The NSI-189 80-mg dose showed significant benefit over placebo when utilizing the MADRS-6 (P = .046) in the subgroup of patients who were moderately depressed (MADRS < 30) but was not significant in patients who were severely depressed (MADRS ≥30). More pronounced procognitive effects were also observed in the moderate subgroup relative to the severe subgroup or the whole study group, in which 11/36 (31%), 5/36 (14%), or 7/36 (19%) of CogScreen variables significantly improved, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that NSI-189 is effective as a safe adjunctive therapy, with most compelling antidepressant and procognitive benefits noted in patients with moderate depression.

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.

Efficacy of intravenous ketamine treatment in anxious versus nonanxious unipolar treatment-resistant depression.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of high baseline anxiety on response to ketamine versus midazolam (active placebo) in treatment-resistant depression (TRD). METHODS: In a multisite, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 99 subjects with TRD were randomized to one of five arms: a single dose of intravenous ketamine 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1.0 mg/kg, or midazolam 0.045 mg/kg. The primary outcome measure was change in the six-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD6). A linear mixed effects model was used to examine the effect of anxious depression baseline status (defined by a Hamilton Depression Rating Scale Anxiety-Somatization score ≥7) on response to ketamine versus midazolam at 1 and 3 days postinfusion. RESULTS: N = 45 subjects had anxious TRD, compared to N = 54 subjects without high anxiety at baseline. No statistically significant interaction effect was found between treatment group assignment (combined ketamine treatment groups versus midazolam) and anxious/nonanxious status on HAMD6 score at either days 1 or 3 postinfusion (Day 1: F(1, 84) = 0.02, P = 0.88; Day 3: F(1, 82) = 0.12, P = 0.73). CONCLUSION: In contrast with what is observed with traditional antidepressants, response to ketamine may be similar in both anxious and nonanxious TRD subjects. These pilot results suggest the potential utility of ketamine in the treatment of anxious TRD.

Pre-treatment peripheral biomarkers associated with treatment response in panic symptoms in patients with major depressive disorder and panic disorder: A 12-week follow-up study.

OBJECTIVE: Peripheral biomarkers have been studied to predict treatment response of panic symptoms. We hypothesized that depressive disorder (MDD) vs. panic disorder (PD) would exhibit different peripheral biomarkers, and their correlation with severity of panic attacks (PA) would also differ. METHODS: Forty-one MDD patients, 52 PD patients, and 59 healthy controls were followed for 12 weeks. We measured peripheral biomarkers along with the Panic Disorder Severity Scale (PDSS) at each visit-pre-treatment, 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks on a regular schedule. Peripheral biomarkers including serum cytokines, plasma and serum brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), leptin, adiponectin, and C-reactive protein (CRP) were quantified using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). RESULTS: Patients with MDD and PD demonstrated significantly higher levels of pre-treatment IL-6 compared to controls, but no differences were seen in plasma and serum BDNF, leptin, adiponectin, and CRP. Pre-treatment leptin showed a significant clinical correlation with reduction of panic symptoms in MDD patients at visit 5 (p=0.011), whereas pre-treatment IL-6 showed a negative correlation with panic symptom reduction in PD patients (p=0.022). An improvement in three panic-related items was observed to be positively correlated with pre-treatment leptin in MDD patients: distress during PA, anticipatory anxiety, and occupational interference. CONCLUSION: Higher pre-treatment leptin was associated with better response to treatment regarding panic symptoms in patients with MDD, while higher IL-6 was associated with worse response regarding panic symptoms in PD patients. Different predictive peripheral biomarkers observed in MDD and PD suggest the need for establishing individualized predictive biomarkers, even in cases of similar symptoms observed in different disorders.

Antidepressants in the acute treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Currently, there are few pharmacotherapy options for clinicians treating post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and antidepressants are usually the medication of choice. This meta-analysis aimed to review the efficacy of antidepressants in the acute treatment of PTSD in adults while investigating the contribution of study design and placebo response to the findings of these studies. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials that compared antidepressants with placebo for acute treatment of PTSD were selected. Standardized mean difference (SMD) in change in Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale scores were pooled after examining for heterogeneity. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Twenty-nine antidepressant-placebo comparisons, involving 4575 subjects, were analyzed. The SMD among all studies was 0.25, a small to medium effect size, lower than that in studies of antidepressants in adult major depressive disorder. The SMDs for low and high mean placebo responses, were 0.27 and 0.22, respectively. The overall SMD for paroxetine studies was in the moderate range (0.43) and that for sertraline studies was in the small range (0.12). Our findings suggest that antidepressants have modest efficacy in alleviating PTSD symptoms. Patient-level meta-analyses are required to further explore the potential clinical relevance of sertraline for PTSD.

Evaluation of the effects of extended release quetiapine fumarate monotherapy on sleep disturbance in patients with major depressive disorder: a pooled analysis of four randomized acute studies.

Effects of once-daily extended-release quetiapine fumarate (quetiapine XR) monotherapy on sleep quality and disturbance in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) were evaluated. Pooled data from four 6- or 8-wk placebo-controlled quetiapine XR (50-300 mg/d) monotherapy studies (D1448C00001; D1448C00002; D1448C00003; D1448C00004) were analysed. Primary efficacy end-point was change from randomization in Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score. Post hoc analyses of secondary end-points were conducted for change from randomization in: MADRS item 4 (reduced sleep); Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD) items 4 (insomnia-early), 5 (insomnia-middle), 6 (insomnia-late) and sleep disturbance factor (items 4 + 5+6) scores; Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) global scores. MADRS total score change was also evaluated in patients experiencing high and low baseline sleep disturbance (HAMD sleep disturbance factor scores ⩾4 and < 4, respectively). In total, 1808 patients were randomized to quetiapine XR or placebo across four studies. At last assessment, quetiapine XR reduced MADRS item 4, HAMD items 4, 5 and 6, HAMD sleep disturbance factor score and PSQI global scores from baseline vs. placebo (p < 0.001). For those experiencing high sleep disturbance (n = 865, quetiapine XR; n = 514, placebo), quetiapine XR improved MADRS total score vs. placebo at all visits (p < 0.001). For those with low sleep disturbance (n = 252, quetiapine XR; n = 121, placebo), quetiapine XR improved MADRS total score vs. placebo at weeks 2 (p < 0.001), 4 and 6 (both p < 0.05). In conclusion, quetiapine XR (50-300 mg/d) monotherapy improved symptoms of sleep disturbance vs. placebo in patients with MDD, including those with either high or low baseline sleep disturbance levels.

Relationship between sleep disturbance and depression, anxiety, and functioning in college students.

BACKGROUND: Sleep disturbance (SD) has complex associations with depression, both preceding and following the onset and recurrence of depression. We hypothesized that students with depressive symptoms with SD would demonstrate a greater burden of comorbid psychiatric symptoms and functional impairment compared to students with depressive symptoms without SD. METHODS: During a mental health screening, 287 undergraduate students endorsed symptoms of depression (Beck Depression Inventory [BDI] ≥ 13) and filled out the following self-report measures: demographic questionnaire, BDI, Anxiety Symptom Questionnaire-intensity and frequency (ASQ), Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS), Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (QLESQ), and the Massachusetts General Hospital Cognitive and Physical Functioning Questionnaire (CPFQ). SD was measured using the BDI sleep item #16 dichotomized (score 0: no SD; or score > 0: some SD). RESULTS: Students with depressive symptoms and SD (n = 220), compared to those without SD (n = 67), endorsed significantly more intense and frequent anxiety and poorer cognitive and physical functioning. Students with depressive symptoms with and without SD did not significantly differ in depressive severity, hopelessness, or quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: College students with depressive symptoms with SD may experience a greater burden of comorbid anxiety symptoms and hyperarousal, and may have impairments in functioning, compared to students with depressive symptoms without SD. These findings require replication.

Pharmacotherapy: Ketamine and Esketamine.

Ketamine and esketamine have rapid-onset antidepressant effects and may be considered for the management of treatment-resistant depression. Intranasal esketamine has regulatory approval in the United States and European Union. Intravenous ketamine is often administered off-label as an antidepressant, though no standard operating procedures exist. Repeated administrations and the use of a concurrent standard antidepressant may maintain antidepressant effects of ketamine/esketamine. Possible adverse effects of ketamine and esketamine include psychiatric, cardiovascular, neurologic and genitourinary effects, and the potential for abuse. The long-term safety and efficacy of ketamine/esketamine as antidepressants require further study.

Surrogate markers of treatment outcome in major depressive disorder.

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a common medical illness affecting millions worldwide. Despite their widespread use since the 1950s and 1960s, the 'downstream' mechanism by which antidepressants ultimately exert their therapeutic effects remains elusive. In addition, except for a few exceptions such as episode severity and the presence of comorbid Axis-I or Axis-III disorders, biological or clinical characteristics which can accurately quantify the risk of poor treatment outcome are lacking, as are factors which could help patients and clinicians select treatment options that would result in superior outcome. The identification of such markers, termed 'surrogate' markers, could help shed further insights into what constitutes illness and recovery, help identify molecular targets for the development of future antidepressants, and lead the way to the design and refinement of a personalized medicine treatment model for MDD. In the following text, several major areas ('leads') where evidence exists regarding the presence of surrogate markers of efficacy outcome in MDD will be briefly reviewed. Leads include evidence from the role of demographic and clinical factors as surrogate markers, to the role of various biological markers including genotype, brain functional imaging, electroencephalography, dichotic listening, and molecular biology and immunology. The purpose of this work is to focus selectively on areas where there have been findings, as opposed to conducting an exhaustive literature review of studies which have failed to yield any significant breakthrough in our knowledge.

Does the frequency of follow-up assessments affect clinical trial outcome? A meta-analysis and meta-regression of placebo-controlled randomized trials.

The number and temporal distribution of follow-up assessments during a clinical trial is a critical factor which may influence the outcome as well as the overall cost of a trial. Therefore, we aimed to examine whether the overall and differential frequency of study observations during the course of a clinical trial affects the risk ratio (RR) of responding to antidepressants vs. placebo, specifically in trials for major depressive disorder (MDD). Medline/Pubmed publication databases were searched for randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of antidepressants for adults with MDD (1 January 1980-11 May 2010). A total of 142 manuscripts involving 256 drug-placebo comparison were pooled (n=38 860). We found that higher overall frequency (OF, frequency of assessments during the entire trial) and higher late frequency (LF, frequency of assessments after the first 3 wk of the trial), but not higher early frequency (EF, frequency of assessments during the first 3 wk of the trial), of follow-up visits predicted a significantly greater RR of responding to antidepressant vs. placebo (coefficient=0.213, p=0.014; coefficient=0.238, p=0.003; and coefficient=0.021, p=0.755, respectively, for OF, LF and EF). None of the measures of frequency examined (OF, EF, LF) significantly predicted the RR of discontinuing antidepressant vs. placebo. These findings suggest that increasing the number of follow-up visits, specifically after the third week rather than within the first 3 wk of the trial, may be an effective approach to improve the likelihood of success in placebo-controlled clinical trials for MDD.

Cost-effectiveness of adjunctive therapy with atypical antipsychotics for acute treatment of major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: While the clinical utility of atypical antipsychotics has been established in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who are refractory to antidepressant therapy, their cost-effectiveness is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To examine the cost-effectiveness of aripiprazole, quetiapine, and olanzapine/fluoxetine in adults with MDD who are refractory to antidepressant therapy. METHODS: Using techniques of decision analysis, we estimated expected outcomes and costs over 6 weeks in adults with MDD receiving (1) aripiprazole 2-20 mg/day and antidepressant therapy; (2) quetiapine 150 mg/day or 300 mg/day and antidepressant therapy; (3) the fixed-dose combination of olanzapine 6, 12, or 18 mg/day with fluoxetine 50 mg/day; or (4) antidepressant therapy alone. Cost-effectiveness was assessed in terms of the cost per additional responder at 6 weeks, defined as the ratio of the difference in the cost of MDD-related care over 6 weeks versus antidepressant therapy alone to the difference in the number of patients achieving clinical response by 6 weeks. We estimated the model using data from Phase 3 clinical trials of atypical antipsychotics along with other secondary data sources. RESULTS: With antidepressant therapy alone, the estimated clinical response rate at 6 weeks was 30%. Aripiprazole, quetiapine 150 mg/day, quetiapine 300 mg/day, and olanzapine/fluoxetine were estimated to increase clinical response at 6 weeks to 49%, 34%, 38%, and 45%, respectively. Costs of MDD-related care over 6 weeks were estimated to be $192 for antidepressant therapy, $847 for aripiprazole, $541 for quetiapine 150 mg/day, $672 for quetiapine 300 mg/day plus antidepressant therapy, and $791 for olanzapine/fluoxetine. Costs per additional responder (vs antidepressant therapy) over a 6-week period were estimated to be $3447 for aripiprazole, $8725 for quetiapine 150 mg/day, $6000 for quetiapine 300 mg/day, and $3993 for olanzapine/fluoxetine. CONCLUSIONS: Atypical antipsychotics substantially increase clinical response at 6 weeks. Cost per additional responder is lower for aripiprazole than for quetiapine or olanzapine/fluoxetine.

Prevalence of MTHFR C677T and MS A2756G polymorphisms in major depressive disorder, and their impact on response to fluoxetine treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence of the C677T polymorphism of the methylene tetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) gene and the A2756G polymorphism of methionine synthase (MS), and their impact on antidepressant response. METHODS: We screened 224 subjects (52% female, mean age 39 ± 11 years) with SCID-diagnosed major depressive disorder (MDD), and obtained 194 genetic samples. 49 subjects (49% female, mean age 36 ± 11 years) participated in a 12-week open clinical trial of fluoxetine 20-60 mg/day. Association between clinical response and C677T and A2756G polymorphisms, folate, B12, and homocysteine was examined. RESULTS: Prevalence of the C677T and A2756G polymorphisms was consistent with previous reports (C/C = 41%, C/T = 47%, T/T = 11%, A/A = 66%, A/G = 29%, G/G = 4%). In the fluoxetine-treated subsample (n = 49), intent-to-treat (ITT) response rates were 47% for C/C subjects and 46% for pooled C/T and T/T subjects (nonsignificant). ITT response rates were 38% for A/A subjects and 60% for A/G subjects (nonsignificant), with no subjects exhibiting the G/G homozygote. Mean baseline plasma B12 was significantly lower in A/G subjects compared to A/A, but folate and homocysteine levels were not affected by genetic status. Plasma folate was negatively associated with treatment response. CONCLUSION: The C677T and A2756G polymorphisms did not significantly affect antidepressant response. These preliminary findings require replication in larger samples.

Antidepressants in children and adolescents with major depressive disorder and the influence of placebo response: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There are few available antidepressants for pediatric Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to review industry-funded studies of antidepressants in children and adolescents with MDD, and to better understand the contribution of study design and placebo response to the findings of these studies. METHODS: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials that compared antidepressant with placebo for the acute treatment of MDD in children and/or adolescents were selected. Estimates of the standardized mean difference (SMD) in change in Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised scores were pooled, after examining for heterogeneity. A random-effects meta-analysis was completed. RESULTS: Thirty-four antidepressant-placebo comparisons, involving 6161 subjects, were included. The SMD among all studies was 0.12 (CI 0.08, 0.17; p < 0.001), a very small effect size, lower than that seen in studies of adults with MDD. When the meta-analysis was limited to studies with a low mean placebo response, the SMD increased to 0.19 and further increased to 0.22 when studies with at least a 50% chance of receiving placebo were included. LIMITATIONS: Many studies focused on older children and younger adolescents. Our findings may not reflect antidepressant efficacy in older adolescents. CONCLUSIONS: The modest SMD identified in this analysis may reflect study design factors and the application of antidepressants developed for adults to pediatric patients. Given the urgent clinical need for more pediatric MDD treatments, the influence of placebo response and the need for drug development tailored to this population should be considered in pediatric MDD trial design.

Efficacy and Safety of Ketamine vs Electroconvulsive Therapy Among Patients With Major Depressive Episode: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Whether ketamine is as effective as electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) among patients with major depressive episode remains unknown. Objective: To systematically review and meta-analyze data about clinical efficacy and safety for ketamine and ECT in patients with major depressive episode. Data Sources: PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase were systematically searched using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and text keywords from database inception through April 19, 2022, with no language limits. Two authors also manually and independently searched all relevant studies in US and European clinical trial registries and Google Scholar. Study Selection: Included were studies that involved (1) a diagnosis of depression using standardized diagnostic criteria, (2) intervention/comparator groups consisting of ECT and ketamine, and (3) depressive symptoms as an efficacy outcome using standardized measures. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data extraction was completed independently by 2 extractors and cross-checked for errors. Hedges g standardized mean differences (SMDs) were used for improvement in depressive symptoms. SMDs with corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using fixed- or random-effects models. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline was followed. Main Outcomes and Measures: Efficacy outcomes included depression severity, cognition, and memory performance. Safety outcomes included serious adverse events (eg, suicide attempts and deaths) and other adverse events. Results: Six clinical trials comprising 340 patients (n = 162 for ECT and n = 178 for ketamine) were included in the review. Six of 6 studies enrolled patients who were eligible to receive ECT, 6 studies were conducted in inpatient settings, and 5 studies were randomized clinical trials. The overall pooled SMD for depression symptoms for ECT when compared with ketamine was -0.69 (95% CI, -0.89 to -0.48; Cochran Q, P = .15; I2 = 39%), suggesting an efficacy advantage for ECT compared with ketamine for depression severity. Significant differences were not observed between groups for studies that assessed cognition/memory or serious adverse events. Both ketamine and ECT had unique adverse effect profiles (ie, ketamine: lower risks for headache and muscle pain; ECT: lower risks for blurred vision, vertigo, diplopia/nystagmus, and transient dissociative/depersonalization symptoms). Limitations included low to moderate methodological quality and underpowered study designs. Conclusions and Relevance: Findings from this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that ECT may be superior to ketamine for improving depression severity in the acute phase, but treatment options should be individualized and patient-centered.