Clinical validation of combinatorial pharmacogenomic testing and single-gene guidelines in predicting psychotropic medication blood levels and clinical outcomes in patients with depression.

We evaluated the clinical validity of a combinatorial pharmacogenomic test and single-gene Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guidelines against patient outcomes and medication blood levels to assess their ability to inform prescribing in major depressive disorder (MDD). This is a secondary analysis of the Genomics Used to Improve DEpression Decisions (GUIDED) randomized-controlled trial, which included patients with a diagnosis of MDD, and ≥1 prior medication failure. The ability to predict increased/decreased medication metabolism was validated against blood levels at screening (adjusted for age, sex, smoking status). The ability of predicted gene-drug interactions (pharmacogenomic test) or therapeutic recommendations (single-gene guidelines) to predict patient outcomes was validated against week 8 outcomes (17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale; symptom improvement, response, remission). Analyses were performed for patients taking any eligible medication (outcomes N=1,022, blood levels N=1,034) and the subset taking medications with single-gene guidelines (outcomes N=584, blood levels N=372). The combinatorial pharmacogenomic test was the only significant predictor of patient outcomes. Both the combinatorial pharmacogenomic test and single-gene guidelines were significant predictors of blood levels for all medications when evaluated separately; however, only the combinatorial pharmacogenomic test remained significant when both were included in the multivariate model. There were no substantial differences when all medications were evaluated or for the subset with single-gene guidelines. Overall, this evaluation of clinical validity demonstrates that the combinatorial pharmacogenomic test was a superior predictor of patient outcomes and medication blood levels when compared with guidelines based on individual genes.

Combinatorial Pharmacogenomic Algorithm is Predictive of Citalopram and Escitalopram Metabolism in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder.

Pharmacogenomic tests used to guide clinical treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD) must be thoroughly validated. One important assessment of validity is the ability to predict medication blood levels, which reflect altered metabolism. Historically, the metabolic impact of individual genes has been evaluated; however, we now know that multiple genes are often involved in medication metabolism. Here, we evaluated the ability of individual pharmacokinetic genes (CYP2C19, CYP2D6, CYP3A4) and a combinatorial pharmacogenomic test (GeneSight Psychotropic®; weighted assessment of all three genes) to predict citalopram/escitalopram blood levels in patients with MDD. Patients from the Genomics Used to Improve DEpression Decisions (GUIDED) trial who were taking citalopram/escitalopram at screening and had available blood level data were included (N=191). In multivariate analysis of the individual genes and combinatorial pharmacogenomic test separately (adjusted for age, smoking status), the F statistic for the combinatorial pharmacogenomic test was 1.7 to 2.9-times higher than the individual genes, showing that it explained more variance in citalopram/escitalopram blood levels. In multivariate analysis of the individual genes and combinatorial pharmacogenomic test together, only the combinatorial pharmacogenomic test remained significant. Overall, this demonstrates that the combinatorial pharmacogenomic test was a superior predictor of citalopram/escitalopram blood levels compared to individual genes.

Complex polypharmacy in bipolar disorder: Side effect burden, adherence, and response predictors.

BACKGROUND: Complex polypharmacy (CP) is common in bipolar disorder (BD). We assessed the associations between CP, adherence, and side effect burden, and patient traits associated with clinical improvement in relationship to CP. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of 482 adult BD participants in the Bipolar CHOICE trial. We examined the associations between CP (use of ≥3 BD medications) and non-adherence (missing >30% of BD medication doses in the last 30 days) and side effect burden (Frequency, Intensity and Burden of Side Effects Rating scale) using multivariate models with patient random effects. We used logistic regression to assess the patient traits associated with remission among those with majority CP use (Clinical Global Impression-Severity for BD score ≤2 for 8+ weeks). RESULTS: 43% of patients had any CP and 25% had CP for the majority of the study. CP was associated with non-adherence (OR = 2.51, 95% CI [1.81, 3.50]), but not worse side effect burden. Among those with CP, 16% achieved remission; those with non-adherence, comorbid social or generalized anxiety disorder, or BD I vs. II were less likely to achieve remission among those with CP. LIMITATIONS: There could be unmeasured confounding between use of CP and side effect burden or adherence. Adherence was measured by self-report, which could be subject to reporting error. CONCLUSIONS: BD patients with CP were less likely to adhere to therapy, and those with worse adherence to CP were less likely to clinically respond. Clinicians should assess medication adherence prior to adding another agent to medication regimens.

Correlation between white blood cell count and mood-stabilising treatment response in two bipolar disorder trials.

BACKGROUND: Immune system markers may predict affective disorder treatment response, but whether an overall immune system marker predicts bipolar disorder treatment effect is unclear. METHODS: Bipolar CHOICE (N = 482) and LiTMUS (N = 283) were similar comparative effectiveness trials treating patients with bipolar disorder for 24 weeks with four different treatment arms (standard-dose lithium, quetiapine, moderate-dose lithium plus optimised personalised treatment (OPT) and OPT without lithium). We performed secondary mixed effects linear regression analyses adjusted for age, gender, smoking and body mass index to investigate relationships between pre-treatment white blood cell (WBC) levels and clinical global impression scale (CGI) response. RESULTS: Compared to participants with WBC counts of 4.5-10 × 109/l, participants with WBC < 4.5 or WBC ≥ 10 showed similar improvement within each specific treatment arm and in gender-stratified analyses. CONCLUSIONS: An overall immune system marker did not predict differential treatment response to four different treatment approaches for bipolar disorder all lasting 24 weeks.

Effect of Antidepressant Switching vs Augmentation on Remission Among Patients With Major Depressive Disorder Unresponsive to Antidepressant Treatment: The VAST-D Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Less than one-third of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) achieve remission with their first antidepressant. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative effectiveness and safety of 3 common alternate treatments for MDD. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From December 2012 to May 2015, 1522 patients at 35 US Veterans Health Administration medical centers who were diagnosed with nonpsychotic MDD, unresponsive to at least 1 antidepressant course meeting minimal standards for treatment dose and duration, participated in the study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to 1 of 3 treatments and evaluated for up to 36 weeks. INTERVENTIONS: Switch to a different antidepressant, bupropion (switch group, n = 511); augment current treatment with bupropion (augment-bupropion group, n = 506); or augment with an atypical antipsychotic, aripiprazole (augment-aripiprazole group, n = 505) for 12 weeks (acute treatment phase) and up to 36 weeks for longer-term follow-up (continuation phase). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was remission during the acute treatment phase (16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Clinician Rated [QIDS-C16] score ≤5 at 2 consecutive visits). Secondary outcomes included response (≥50% reduction in QIDS-C16 score or improvement on the Clinical Global Impression Improvement scale), relapse, and adverse effects. RESULTS: Among 1522 randomized patients (mean age, 54.4 years; men, 1296 [85.2%]), 1137 (74.7%) completed the acute treatment phase. Remission rates at 12 weeks were 22.3% (n = 114) for the switch group, 26.9% (n = 136)for the augment-bupropion group, and 28.9% (n = 146) for the augment-aripiprazole group. The augment-aripiprazole group exceeded the switch group in remission (relative risk [RR], 1.30 [95% CI, 1.05-1.60]; P = .02), but other remission comparisons were not significant. Response was greater for the augment-aripiprazole group (74.3%) than for either the switch group (62.4%; RR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.09-1.29]) or the augment-bupropion group (65.6%; RR, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.04-1.23]). No significant treatment differences were observed for relapse. Anxiety was more frequent in the 2 bupropion groups (24.3% in the switch group [n = 124] vs 16.6% in the augment-aripiprazole group [n = 84]; and 22.5% in augment-bupropion group [n = 114]). Adverse effects more frequent in the augment-aripiprazole group included somnolence, akathisia, and weight gain. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among a predominantly male population with major depressive disorder unresponsive to antidepressant treatment, augmentation with aripiprazole resulted in a statistically significant but only modestly increased likelihood of remission during 12 weeks of treatment compared with switching to bupropion monotherapy. Given the small effect size and adverse effects associated with aripiprazole, further analysis including cost-effectiveness is needed to understand the net utility of this approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01421342.

Peripheral vascular endothelial growth factor as a novel depression biomarker: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The neurotrophic hypothesis of major depressive disorder (MDD) postulates that the pathology of this illness incorporates a down-regulation of neurotrophin signaling. Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) is the most studied neurotrophic mediator regarding the neurobiology of MDD. Nevertheless, emerging evidence has implicated the multi-competent angiogenic and neurogenic molecule - vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) - in hippocampal neurogenesis and depression pathophysiology. OBJECTIVE: To compare peripheral levels of VEGF between individuals with MDD and healthy controls. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of original studies measuring peripheral levels of VEGF in participants with MDD compared to healthy controls. We searched the Pubmed/MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycInfo databases for studies published in any language through December 16th, 2014. RESULTS: Fourteen studies met eligibility criteria (N=1633). VEGF levels were significantly elevated in individuals with MDD when compared to healthy controls (Hedges's g=0.343; 95% CI: 0.146-0.540; P<0.01). Funnel plot inspection and the Egger's test did not provide evidence of publication bias. A significant degree of heterogeneity was observed (Q=38.355, df=13, P<0.001; I(2)=66.1%), which was explored through meta-regression and subgroup analyses. Overall methodological quality, sample for assay (plasma versus serum), as well as the matching of MDD and control samples for age and gender emerged as significant sources of heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, extant data indicate that VEGF shows promise as a biomarker for MDD, and supports that this mediator may be involved in neuroplasticity mechanisms underlying the pathophysiology of MDD.

Medical burden in bipolar disorder: findings from the Clinical and Health Outcomes Initiative in Comparative Effectiveness for Bipolar Disorder study (Bipolar CHOICE).

OBJECTIVES: Individuals with bipolar disorder have high rates of other medical comorbidity, which is associated with higher mortality rates and worse course of illness. The present study examined common predictors of medical comorbidity. METHODS: The Clinical and Health Outcomes Initiative in Comparative Effectiveness for Bipolar Disorder study (Bipolar CHOICE) enrolled 482 participants with bipolar I or bipolar II disorder in a six-month, randomized comparative effectiveness trial. Baseline assessments included current and lifetime DSM-IV-TR diagnoses, demographic information, psychiatric and medical history, severity of psychiatric symptoms, level of functioning, and a fasting blood draw. Medical comorbidities were categorized into two groups: cardiometabolic (e.g., diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and metabolic syndrome) and non-cardiovascular (e.g., seizures, asthma, and cancer). Additionally, we looked at comorbid substance use (e.g., smoking and drug dependence). RESULTS: We found that 96.3% of participants had at least one other medical comorbidity. Older age predicted a greater likelihood of having a cardiometabolic condition. Early age of onset of bipolar symptoms was associated with a lower chance of having a cardiometabolic condition, but a greater chance of having other types of medical comorbidity. Additional predictors of other medical comorbidities in bipolar disorder included more time spent depressed, less time spent manic/hypomanic, and longer duration of illness. Medications associated with weight gain were associated with low high-density lipoprotein and abnormal triglycerides. CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be a substantial medical burden associated with bipolar disorder, highlighting the need for collaborative care among psychiatric and general medical providers to address both psychiatric and other medical needs concomitantly in this group of patients.

Comparison of adjunctive use of aripiprazole with bupropion or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors/serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors: analysis of patients beginning adjunctive treatment in a 52-week, open-label study.

BACKGROUND: This post hoc analysis assessed the safety, tolerability and effectiveness of long-term treatment with aripiprazole adjunctive to either bupropion or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs)/serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: Data from de novo patients (did not participate in 2 previous studies) in a 52-week, open-label safety study of adjunctive aripiprazole after documented inadequate response to 1-4 antidepressant treatments (ADTs; SSRI, SNRI, or bupropion) were analyzed post hoc. Assessments included safety and tolerability, sexual functioning (Massachusetts General Hospital Sexual Functioning Inventory [MGH-SFI]) and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S). RESULTS: Forty-seven patients received bupropion plus aripiprazole and 245 received an SSRI/SNRI plus aripiprazole; 19 (40.4%) and 78 (31.8%), respectively, completed 52 weeks of treatment, and 46 and 242, respectively, received ≥1 dose of study medication (safety sample). Median time to discontinuation (any reason) was 184.0 days. Overall, 97.8% of patients in the bupropion group and 93.8% in the SSRI/SNRI group experienced ≥1 adverse event. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were fatigue (26.1%) and somnolence (21.7%) with bupropion and fatigue (23.6%) and akathisia (23.6%) with an SSRI/SNRI. Mean change in body weight at week 52 (observed cases) was +3.1 kg for bupropion and +2.4 kg for an SSRI/SNRI. Treatment-emergent, potentially clinically relevant abnormalities in fasting glucose occurred in 8.3% of patients with bupropion and 17.4% with an SSRI/SNRI; for abnormalities in fasting total cholesterol, the incidence was 25.0% and 34.7%, respectively. Mean (SE) change from baseline in fasting glucose was 1.4 (1.9) mg/dL with bupropion and 2.7 (1.5) mg/dL with an SSRI/SNRI. Baseline MGH-SFI item scores indicated less severe impairment with bupropion versus an SSRI/SNRI; in both groups most MGH-SFI items exhibited improvement at week 52. Mean CGI-S improvement at week 52 (last observation carried forward) was -1.4 with bupropion and -1.5 with an SSRI/SNRI (efficacy sample). CONCLUSIONS: There were no unexpected AEs with long-term adjunctive aripiprazole therapy when added to either bupropion or SSRIs/SNRIs, and symptom improvement was similar between ADT groups. Sexual functioning in patients with MDD on antidepressants was also modestly improved after adding aripiprazole. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00095745 (November 9, 2004).

Depressive illness burden associated with complex polypharmacy in patients with bipolar disorder: findings from the STEP-BD.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with bipolar disorder receive multi-drug treatment regimens, but the distinguishing profiles of patients who receive complex pharmacologies have not been established. METHOD: Prescribing patterns of lithium, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, and antipsychotics were examined for 4,035 subjects with bipolar disorder (DSM-IV) immediately prior to entering the Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for Bipolar Disorder (STEP-BD). Subjects were recruited for participation across 22 centers in the United States between November 1999 and July 2005. The quality receiver operating characteristic (ROC) method was used to develop composite profiles of patients receiving complex regimens (p < .01 for all iterations). RESULTS: Use of 3 or more medications occurred in 40% of subjects, while 18% received 4 or more agents. Quality ROC analyses revealed that subjects had a 64% risk for receiving a complex regimen (> or = 4 medications) if they had (1) ever taken an atypical antipsychotic, (2) > or = 6 lifetime depressive episodes, (3) attempted suicide, and (4) an annual income > or = $75,000. Complex polypharmacy was least often associated with lithium, divalproex, or carbamazepine and most often associated with atypical antipsychotics or antidepressants. Contrary to expectations, a history of psychosis, age at onset, bipolar I versus II subtype, history of rapid cycling, prior hospitalizations, current illness state, and history of alcohol or substance use disorders did not significantly alter the risk profiles for receiving complex regimens. CONCLUSION: Complex polypharmacy involving at least 4 medications occurs in approximately 1 in 5 individuals with bipolar disorder. Use of traditional mood stabilizers is associated with fewer cotherapies. Complex regimens are especially common in patients with substantial depressive illness burden and suicidality, for whom simpler drug regimens may fail to produce acceptable levels of response. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00012558.

What predicts attrition in second step medication treatments for depression?: a STAR*D Report.

Attrition rates are high during treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD), and patients who drop out are less likely to reach remission. This report evaluates the incidence, timing, and predictors of attrition during second-step medication treatment. Outpatients in the multisite Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study receiving a medication augmentation (n=563) or medication switch (n=723) for non-psychotic MDD after an unsatisfactory outcome with citalopram were evaluated to determine attrition rates and pretreatment sociodemographic or clinical predictors of attrition. Twenty percent of participants receiving a medication augmentation and 27% receiving a medication switch dropped out before 12 wk in the second treatment step. Remission rates were lower for dropouts [7% vs. 43% (medication augmentation); 12% vs. 31% (medication switch)]. For medication augmentation, Black and other non-Caucasian races, Hispanic ethnicity, younger age, family history of drug abuse, concurrent drug abuse, sociodemographic disadvantage, less symptom improvement with initial citalopram treatment, and greater symptom severity when beginning augmentation were associated with attrition. For medication switch, Black and other non-Caucasian races, younger age, more melancholic features, and lower exit doses but more severe side-effects with citalopram treatment were associated with attrition. Minority status, younger age, and greater difficulty with the first treatment step are risk factors for attrition in the second treatment step. Focus on patients with attrition risk factors for medication augmentation or switch strategies may enhance retention and improve outcomes.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the effect of sustained-release bupropion on blood pressure in individuals with mild untreated hypertension.

The effects of bupropion on blood pressure and heart rate were evaluated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of community volunteers with untreated mild (stage 1) hypertension (systolic blood pressure [SBP], 140-159 mm Hg, and/or diastolic blood pressure, 90-99 mm Hg). Three hundred subjects were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to 4 weeks of placebo or bupropion sustained release (SR) 150, 300, or 400 mg/d. Mean clinical blood pressures decreased from baseline to the end of protocol in all groups (n = 296): -6.53, -6.46, -4.20, -4.87 mm Hg for SBP; and -2.36, -2.27, -1.95, -1.55 mm Hg for diastolic blood pressure, for each group, respectively. Although decreases in mean clinical blood pressure were observed in all groups, the reduction in SBP was less on bupropion SR 300 mg/d than on placebo (-4.20 vs -6.53 mm Hg, respectively; Delta = 2.33, P = 0.020). Neither mean 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure measurements nor the proportion of subjects with clinically significant increases in blood pressure differed between any bupropion SR dose and placebo. Mean heart rate increases were small but statistically significant at 400 mg/d versus placebo (2.28 vs -0.64 beats/min; Delta = 2.92, P = 0.004). Although only minor effects on blood pressure were observed in this trial, an infrequent association of bupropion therapy and treatment-emergent hypertension cannot be ruled out.

Efficacy of quetiapine monotherapy for the treatment of depressive episodes in bipolar I disorder: a post hoc analysis of combined results from 2 double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine monotherapy for the treatment of major depressive episodes in patients with bipolar I disorder, as a post hoc analysis of data from 2 large studies, the BipOLar DEpRession (BOLDER) I and II studies, which investigated the overall efficacy of quetiapine in both bipolar I and II disorder. METHOD: A combined cohort of patients with depressive episodes in bipolar I disorder (DSM-IV criteria) (N = 694) from 2 nearly identical double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies that each randomly assigned patients with bipolar I and II disorder to 8 weeks of treatment with quetiapine 300 or 600 mg/day or placebo was analyzed. The primary efficacy measure was change from baseline to end of treatment (week 8) in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total scores. RESULTS: In the combined cohort of patients with depressive episodes in bipolar I disorder from 2 studies, there were significantly greater clinical improvements in mean MADRS total scores among patients who received quetiapine compared with placebo from baseline to week 1 and through week 8 (at week 8: quetiapine 300 mg/day = -19.4; 600 mg/day = -19.6; placebo = -12.6; p < .001 for each dose), providing effect sizes of 0.78 and 0.80, respectively. Changes in MADRS were unrelated to reports of sedation and somnolence. The most common adverse events (AEs) with quetiapine were dry mouth, somnolence, sedation, dizziness, and constipation. Rates of withdrawal because of these AEs were relatively low. CONCLUSIONS: Quetiapine monotherapy (300 and 600 mg/day) is more effective than placebo and generally well tolerated for the treatment of depressive episodes in patients with bipolar I disorder.

Treatment of SSRI-resistant depression: a meta-analysis comparing within- versus across-class switches.

BACKGROUND: Two broad treatment options exist for switching antidepressants for depressed patients who fail to respond to a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI): either a second course of SSRI therapy or a different class of antidepressants. The goal of the present work was to conduct a meta-analysis of studies comparing these two switch strategies. METHODS: Several sources were searched for randomized clinical trials comparing these two switch strategies. RESULTS: Data from four clinical trials (n = 1496) were combined using a random-effects model. Patients randomized to switch to a non-SSRI antidepressant (bupropion, mirtazapine, venlafaxine) were more likely to experience remission than patients switched to a second SSRI (risk ratio = 1.29, p = .007). Pooled remission rates were 28% (for non-SSRIs) and 23.5% (for SSRIs). There was also a nonsignificant trend (p = .1) in the rate of discontinuation due to intolerance favoring the within-class switch strategy (risk ratio = 1.23). There was no difference in response rates between the two treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest a modest yet statistically significant advantage in remission rates when switching patients with SSRI-resistant depression to a non-SSRI rather than an SSRI antidepressant. With the number needed to treat (NNT) statistic as one indicator of clinical significance, nearly 22 SSRI nonresponders would need to be switched to a non-SSRI rather than a second SSRI antidepressant to obtain one additional remitter. This difference falls well below the mark of NNT = 10 suggested by the United Kingdom's National Institute of Clinical Excellence but nonetheless might be of public health relevance given the large number of SSRI-resistant patients switched to an SSRI versus a non-SSRI antidepressant.

Comparing the rapidity of response during treatment of major depressive disorder with bupropion and the SSRIs: a pooled survival analysis of 7 double-blind, randomized clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: Several controlled studies, as well as a meta-analysis, suggest that the efficacy of bupropion, a norepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibitor, is comparable to that of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). The current analysis was undertaken to determine if these antidepressants differ in rapidity of clinical effect. METHOD: Individual patient data were obtained from 7 double-blind, randomized studies of 8 weeks' duration that compared bupropion (N = 836) and SSRIs (sertraline, paroxetine, fluoxetine, and escitalopram; N = 836). Time to first response and first remission were compared between treatment groups with the use of Cox proportional hazards regression models, stratified by trial number, with depression severity at baseline as a covariate. A secondary analysis compared outcomes in the 2 bupropion versus escitalopram studies. Random-effects meta-analyses were then conducted to confirm the survival-analysis findings. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between bupropion and the SSRIs in time to first response (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.955; p = .43) and first remission (HR = 1.00; p = .97). Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference between bupropion and escitalopram in time to first response (HR = 0.897; p = .29), and first remission (HR = 0.999; p = .99). These results were confirmed with the use of random-effects meta-analyses (p > .05, all 4 analyses). CONCLUSION: There does not appear to be any statistically detectable difference in the rapidity of antidepressant effect between bupropion and the SSRIs overall or escitalopram specifically.

Cognitive therapy versus medication in augmentation and switch strategies as second-step treatments: a STAR*D report.

OBJECTIVE: The authors compared the effectiveness of cognitive therapy and pharmacotherapy as second-step strategies for outpatients with major depressive disorder who had received inadequate benefit from an initial trial of citalopram. Cognitive therapy was compared with medication augmentation and switch strategies. METHOD: An equipoise-stratified randomization strategy was used to assign participants to either augmentation of citalopram with cognitive therapy (N=65) or medication (N=117; either sustained-release bupropion [N=56] or buspirone [N=61]) or switch to cognitive therapy (N=36) or another antidepressant (N=86; sertraline [N=27], sustained-release bupropion [N=28], or extended-release venlafaxine [N=31]). Treatment outcomes and the frequency of adverse events were compared. RESULTS: Less than one-third of participants consented to randomization strata that permitted comparison of cognitive therapy and pharmacotherapy. Among participants who were assigned to second-step treatment, those who received cognitive therapy (either alone or in combination with citalopram) had similar response and remission rates to those assigned to medication strategies. For those who continued on citalopram, medication augmentation resulted in significantly more rapid remission than augmentation with cognitive therapy. Among those who discontinued citalopram, there were no significant differences in outcome, although those who switched to a different antidepressant reported significantly more side effects than those who received cognitive therapy alone. CONCLUSIONS: After an unsatisfactory response to citalopram, patients who consented to random assignment to either cognitive therapy or alternative pharmacologic strategies had generally comparable outcomes. Pharmacologic augmentation was more rapidly effective than cognitive therapy augmentation of citalopram, whereas switching to cognitive therapy was better tolerated than switching to a different antidepressant.

Effectiveness of adjunctive antidepressant treatment for bipolar depression.

BACKGROUND: Episodes of depression are the most frequent cause of disability among patients with bipolar disorder. The effectiveness and safety of standard antidepressant agents for depressive episodes associated with bipolar disorder (bipolar depression) have not been well studied. Our study was designed to determine whether adjunctive antidepressant therapy reduces symptoms of bipolar depression without increasing the risk of mania. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled study, we randomly assigned subjects with bipolar depression to receive up to 26 weeks of treatment with a mood stabilizer plus adjunctive antidepressant therapy or a mood stabilizer plus a matching placebo, under conditions generalizable to routine clinical care. A standardized clinical monitoring form adapted from the mood-disorder modules of the Structured Clinical Interview for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition, was used at all follow-up visits. The primary outcome was the percentage of subjects in each treatment group meeting the criterion for a durable recovery (8 consecutive weeks of euthymia). Secondary effectiveness outcomes and rates of treatment-emergent affective switch (a switch to mania or hypomania early in the course of treatment) were also examined. RESULTS: Forty-two of the 179 subjects (23.5%) receiving a mood stabilizer plus adjunctive antidepressant therapy had a durable recovery, as did 51 of the 187 subjects (27.3%) receiving a mood stabilizer plus a matching placebo (P=0.40). Modest nonsignificant trends favoring the group receiving a mood stabilizer plus placebo were observed across the secondary outcomes. Rates of treatment-emergent affective switch were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The use of adjunctive, standard antidepressant medication, as compared with the use of mood stabilizers, was not associated with increased efficacy or with increased risk of treatment-emergent affective switch. Longer-term outcome studies are needed to fully assess the benefits and risks of antidepressant therapy for bipolar disorder. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00012558 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

A double-blind comparison between bupropion XL and venlafaxine XR: sexual functioning, antidepressant efficacy, and tolerability.

In this double-blind, multicenter study, bupropion XL, a norepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibitor, and venlafaxine XR, a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, were compared with regard to sexual functioning, efficacy, and tolerability. A total of 348 sexually active adult outpatients with depression were randomized to receive bupropion XL (titrated to a target dose of 300-450 mg/d) or venlafaxine XR (titrated to a target dose of 150-225 mg/d) for 12 weeks. Total scores on the primary dependent variable, the Changes in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (self-report), increased for subjects receiving bupropion XL and decreased for those treated with venlafaxine XR; the mean change scores differed significantly between groups from week 2 onward. Among subjects with normal pretreatment sexual functioning, Changes in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire total scores remained essentially unchanged for the bupropion XL group but were decreased significantly for the venlafaxine XR group; mean change scores also differed between groups from week 2 onward. Although the therapies resulted in similar change on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, remission rates were significantly higher among those treated with bupropion XL (46%) versus venlafaxine XR (33%) (odds ratio, 1.93; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-3.46). Aside from adverse effects of venlafaxine XR on sexual function, both treatments were reasonably well tolerated. In conclusion, in this patient population (ie, relatively young, sexually active outpatients), bupropion XL was at least as effective as venlafaxine XR and had a significantly more favorable sexual side effect profile.

A comparison of mirtazapine and nortriptyline following two consecutive failed medication treatments for depressed outpatients: a STAR*D report.

OBJECTIVE: Few controlled studies have addressed the issue of which antidepressant medications should be recommended for outpatients who have not responded to multiple treatment trials. This study compared the efficacy of switching to mirtazapine to that of switching to a tricyclic antidepressant (nortriptyline) following two prospective, consecutive, unsuccessful medication treatments for nonpsychotic major depressive disorder. METHOD: Following lack of remission or an inability to tolerate an initial trial of citalopram for up to 12 weeks (first step) and a second trial with either monotherapy involving another antidepressant or augmentation of citalopram with bupropion or buspirone (second step), adult outpatients (N=235) with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder were randomly assigned to 14 weeks of treatment with mirtazapine (up to 60 mg/day) (N=114) or nortriptyline (up to 200 mg/day) (N=121). The primary outcome, symptom remission, was defined a priori as a total exit score of /=50% reduction in score from baseline). RESULTS: For mirtazapine, remission rates were 12.3% and 8.0% per the Hamilton and QIDS-SR(16) scores, respectively. For nortriptyline, remission rates were 19.8% and 12.4%, respectively. QIDS-SR(16) response rates were 13.4% for mirtazapine and 16.5% for nortriptyline. Neither response nor remission rates statistically differed by treatment, nor did these two treatments differ in tolerability or adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Switching to a third antidepressant monotherapy regimen after two consecutive unsuccessful antidepressant trials resulted in low remission rates (<20%) among patients with major depressive disorder.