Baseline medical comorbidities in adults randomized in the STRIDE trial for psychostimulant use disorders.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Rates of medical illnesses may be higher among individuals with substance use disorders, complicating their care. This study aimed to expand the understanding of other medical conditions in treatment-seeking adults with stimulant use disorder (SUD) using data from Stimulant Reduction Intervention using Dose Exercise (STRIDE), a randomized, multisite trial investigating exercise augmentation of treatment as usual. METHODS: Utilizing STRIDE baseline data, we examined demographic and clinical characteristics based on the number of self-reported diagnosed medical conditions among participants meeting eligibility criteria (passing medical screening exam and maximal exercise test, non-opioid dependent, no concomitant beta blocker, or opioid replacement therapy). RESULTS: The majority (59%) of study participants (N = 302, mean age all participants = 39 years) did not report any history of other medical problems. Those with two or more conditions were older (mean age 46 years), reported more pain and worse physical functioning, and more psychiatric disorders (average 1.44). Hypertension was more common among participants with cocaine use disorders only (present in 16%) and liver disease was more common in those with cocaine plus other stimulant use disorders (present in 7%). CONCLUSION AND SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: In this sample, patients with SUD were in surprisingly good health. A subpopulation had an overall higher burden of illness with worsened physical and psychiatric functioning. Provision of coordinated care may optimize treatment outcomes for patients based on medical comorbidity burden as well as type of drug abused, although these conclusions should be considered preliminary as they are based on self-reported data.

Residual symptoms in depressed outpatients who respond by 50% but do not remit to antidepressant medication.

Little is known about the quantity or quality of residual depressive symptoms in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who have responded but not remitted with antidepressant treatment. This report describes the residual symptom domains and individual depressive symptoms in a large representative sample of outpatients with nonpsychotic MDD who responded without remitting after up to 12 weeks of citalopram treatment in the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study. Response was defined as 50% or greater reduction in baseline 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology--Self-Report (QIDS-SR16) by treatment exit, and remission as a final QIDS-SR16 of less than 6. Residual symptom domains and individual symptoms were based on the QIDS-SR16 and classified as either persisting from baseline or emerging during treatment. Most responders who did not remit endorsed approximately 5 residual symptom domains and 6 to 7 residual depressive symptoms. The most common domains were insomnia (94.6%), sad mood (70.8%), and decreased concentration (69.6%). The most common individual symptoms were midnocturnal insomnia (79.0%), sad mood (70.8%), and decreased concentration/decision making (69.6%). The most common treatment-emergent symptoms were midnocturnal insomnia (51.4%) and decreased general interest (40.0%). The most common persistent symptoms were midnocturnal insomnia (81.6%), sad mood (70.8%), and decreased concentration/decision making (70.6%). Suicidal ideation was the least common treatment-emergent symptom (0.7%) and the least common persistent residual symptom (17.1%). These findings suggest that depressed outpatients who respond by 50% without remitting to citalopram treatment have a broad range of residual symptoms. Individualized treatments are warranted to specifically address each patient's residual depressive symptoms.

Determining the primary endpoint for a stimulant abuse trial: lessons learned from STRIDE (CTN 0037).

BACKGROUND: No consensus is available for identifying the best primary outcome for substance use disorder trials, making interpretation across trials difficult. Abstinence is the most desirable treatment outcome although a wide variety of other endpoints have been used. OBJECTIVES: This report provides a framework for determining an optimal primary endpoint and the relevant measurement approach for substance use disorder treatment trials. The framework was developed based on a trial for stimulant abuse using exercise as an augmentation treatment, delivered within the NIDA Clinical Trials Network. The use of a common endpoint across trials will facilitate comparisons of treatment efficacy. METHODS: Primary endpoint options in existing substance abuse studies were evaluated. This evaluation included surveys of the literature for endpoints and measurement approaches, followed by assessment of endpoint choices against study design issues, population characteristics, tests of sensitivity, and tests of clinical meaningfulness. CONCLUSION: We concluded that the best current choice for a primary endpoint is percent days abstinent, as measured by the Time Line Follow Back interview conducted three times a week with recall aided by a take-home Substance Use Diary. To improve the accuracy of the self-reported drug use, the results of qualitative urine drug screens will be used in conjunction with the Time Line Follow Back results. SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: There is a need for a standardized endpoint in this field to allow for comparison across treatment studies, and we suggest that the recommended candidate endpoint be considered. However, the study design and goals ultimately must guide the final decision.

Do atypical features affect outcome in depressed outpatients treated with citalopram?

Depressed patients with atypical features have an earlier onset of depression, a more chronic course of illness, several distinctive biological and familial features, and a different treatment response than those without atypical features. The efficacy and tolerability of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have not been fully evaluated in depression with atypical features. This report evaluates data from the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study to determine whether depressed outpatients with and without atypical features respond differently to the SSRI citalopram. Treatment-seeking participants with non-psychotic major depressive disorder were recruited from primary- and psychiatric-care settings. The presence/absence of atypical features was approximated using baseline ratings on the 30-item Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology - Clinician-rated. Following baseline assessments, participants received citalopram up to 60 mg/d for up to 14 wk. Baseline sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, and treatment outcomes, were compared between participants with and without atypical features. Of the 2876 evaluable STAR*D participants, 541 (19%) had atypical features. Participants with atypical features were significantly more likely to be female, younger, unemployed, have greater physical impairment, a younger age of depression onset, a longer index episode, greater depressive severity, and more concurrent anxiety diagnoses. Those with atypical features had significantly lower remission rates, although this difference was no longer present after adjustment for baseline differences. Depressed patients with atypical features are less likely to remit with citalopram than those without atypical features. This finding is probably due to differences in baseline characteristics other than atypical symptom features.

Early adverse events and attrition in selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor treatment: a suicide assessment methodology study report.

Adverse events during selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) treatment are frequent and may lead to premature treatment discontinuation. If attrition is associated with early worsening of adverse effects or the frequency, intensity, or burden of adverse effects, interventions to maximize retention could be focused on patients with these events. Outpatient participants (n = 265) with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder entered an 8-week trial with an SSRI. At baseline and week 2, specific adverse effects were evaluated with the Systematic Assessment for Treatment Emergent Events--Systematic Inquiry, and at week 2, the Frequency, Intensity, and Burden of Side Effects Rating globally assessed adverse effects. Attrition was defined by those participants who left treatment after week 2 but before week 8. No specific week 2 adverse effect, either treatment-emergent or with worsening intensity, was independently associated with attrition. Global ratings of adverse effect frequency, intensity, or burden at week 2 were also not associated with subsequent attrition. Neither global ratings nor specific adverse effects at week 2 were related to patient attrition during SSRI treatment. Other factors seem to contribute to patient decisions about continuing with treatment.

Health-related quality of life in depression: a STAR*D report.

BACKGROUND: Although major depressive disorder (MDD) is associated with significant impairments in health-related quality of life (HRQOL), few studies have evaluated HRQOL dysfunction in multiple domains. This report examined the psychological, physical, and social domains in a large sample of outpatients who entered the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) trial. METHODS: The relationship of HRQOL and baseline sociodemographic and clinical features, including depressive severity, was evaluated. We assessed HRQOL with the 12-item Short Form Health Survey, the 5-item Work and Social Adjustment Scale, and the 16-item Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire. RESULTS: Among 2307 participants, greater depressive symptom severity was associated with poorer HRQOL. After controlling for age and depression severity, lower HRQOL was related independently to being African American or Hispanic, less educated, unemployed, divorced or separated, having public medical insurance, and to having more general medical disorders. We found impairments across all 3 domains, with low correlations between the 3 measures of HRQOL chosen, suggesting that they evaluate different and nonoverlapping aspects of function. CONCLUSION: Sociodemographically disadvantaged patients with greater general medical and depressive illness burden are at greatest risk for poorer quality of life. Distinct impairments are seen in the 3 domains of HRQOL.

The quick inventory of depressive symptomatology (clinician and self-report versions) in patients with bipolar disorder.

INTRODUCTION: The clinical and self-report versions of the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS-C16 and QIDS-SR16) have been well studied in patients with major depressive disorder and in one recent study using patients with bipolar disorder. This article examines these measures in a second sample of 141 outpatients with bipolar disorder in different phases of the illness. METHODS: At baseline, 61 patients were depressed and 30 were euthymic; at exit, 50 were depressed and 52 were euthymic. The remaining patients (at baseline or exit) were in either a manic or mixed phase and were pooled for statistical reasons. RESULTS: Similar results were found for the QIDS-C16 and QIDS-SR16. Scores were reasonably reliable to the extent that variability within groups permitted. As expected, euthymic patients showed less depressive symptomatology than depressed patients. Sad mood and general interest were the most discriminating symptoms between depressed and euthymic phases. Changes in illness phase (baseline to exit) were associated with substantial changes in scores. The relation of individual depressive symptoms to the overall level of depression was consistent across phases. CONCLUSION: Both the QIDS-SR16 and QIDS-C16 are suitable measures of depressive symptoms in patients with bipolar disorder.

Identifying and responding to trial implementation challenges during multisite clinical trials.

INTRODUCTION: The National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) was initiated by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) in 2000 with the aim of improving substance use treatment and reducing the time between the discovery of effective treatments and their implementation into clinical practice. While initial trials were conducted almost exclusively in specialty addiction treatment settings, the CTN began evolving strategically in 2010 to conduct research in general medical settings, including healthcare systems, primary care settings, emergency departments, and pharmacies, to broaden impact. The advantages of a research network like the CTN is not only the collective content expertise that investigators contribute to the network, but the collective experience gained by conducting studies in the network and then applying those lessons to future studies. OBJECTIVE: To summarize trial implementation challenges encountered, and the process by which solutions were identified and implemented, within one of the last early-phase CTN Stage II behavioral intervention studies conducted in a specialty addiction treatment setting. METHOD AND RESULTS: We describe the implementation of the CTN-0037 STimulant Reduction Intervention using Dosed Exercise (STRIDE) trial. Issues encountered during study implementation are categorized into four major areas, described in terms useful to future study teams: 1) study team infrastructure challenges, 2) participant- and site- level challenges, 3) intervention-related challenges, and 4) longitudinal study design challenges. Potential consequences of identified problems and the solutions developed to manage these problems are discussed within the context of these four areas. We propose how to extend these implementation lessons and apply them in other healthcare settings to expand the CTN. CONCLUSIONS: Effective study management allows for flexible, collaborative solutions to expected and unexpected obstacles to study success. Implementation strategies derived from the first 15 to 20 years of CTN studies are a result of working with providers and participants, and the ongoing collaboration among CTN investigators and network staff. Timely identification and response to problems during study implementation are critical to the success of a trial, regardless of its design. We believe a collaborative approach to identifying and responding to study implementation challenges will increase the likelihood of successful adoption of relevant, efficacious interventions. As the CTN continues to expand, the wealth of successful trial implementation strategies developed during the first 20 years of the CTN need to be applied and adapted to studies in broader network settings, and considered in conjunction with more formalized implementation science processes that are currently available.

Bupropion-SR, sertraline, or venlafaxine-XR after failure of SSRIs for depression.

BACKGROUND: After unsuccessful treatment for depression with a selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), it is not known whether switching to one antidepressant is more effective than switching to another. METHODS: We randomly assigned 727 adult outpatients with a nonpsychotic major depressive disorder who had no remission of symptoms or could not tolerate the SSRI citalopram to receive one of the following drugs for up to 14 weeks: sustained-release bupropion (239 patients) at a maximal daily dose of 400 mg, sertraline (238 patients) at a maximal daily dose of 200 mg, or extended-release venlafaxine (250 patients) at a maximal daily dose of 375 mg. The study was conducted in 18 primary and 23 psychiatric care settings. The primary outcome was symptom remission, defined by a total score of 7 or less on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD-17) at the end of the study. Scores on the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology - Self Report (QIDS-SR-16), obtained at treatment visits, determined secondary outcomes, including remission (a score of 5 or less at exit) and response (a reduction of 50 percent or more on baseline scores). RESULTS: Remission rates as assessed by the HRSD-17 and the QIDS-SR-16, respectively, were 21.3 percent and 25.5 percent for sustained-release bupropion, 17.6 percent and 26.6 percent for sertraline, and 24.8 percent and 25.0 percent for extended-release venlafaxine. QIDS-SR-16 response rates were 26.1 percent for sustained-release bupropion, 26.7 percent for sertraline, and 28.2 percent for extended-release venlafaxine. These treatments did not differ significantly with respect to outcomes, tolerability, or adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: After unsuccessful treatment with an SSRI, approximately one in four patients had a remission of symptoms after switching to another antidepressant. Any one of the medications in the study provided a reasonable second-step choice for patients with depression. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00021528.).

Medication augmentation after the failure of SSRIs for depression.

BACKGROUND: Although clinicians frequently add a second medication to an initial, ineffective antidepressant drug, no randomized controlled trial has compared the efficacy of this approach. METHODS: We randomly assigned 565 adult outpatients who had nonpsychotic major depressive disorder without remission despite a mean of 11.9 weeks of citalopram therapy (mean final dose, 55 mg per day) to receive sustained-release bupropion (at a dose of up to 400 mg per day) as augmentation and 286 to receive buspirone (at a dose of up to 60 mg per day) as augmentation. The primary outcome of remission of symptoms was defined as a score of 7 or less on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD-17) at the end of this study; scores were obtained over the telephone by raters blinded to treatment assignment. The 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology--Self-Report (QIDS-SR-16) was used to determine the secondary outcomes of remission (defined as a score of less than 6 at the end of this study) and response (a reduction in baseline scores of 50 percent or more). RESULTS: The sustained-release bupropion group and the buspirone group had similar rates of HRSD-17 remission (29.7 percent and 30.1 percent, respectively), QIDS-SR-16 remission (39.0 percent and 32.9 percent), and QIDS-SR-16 response (31.8 percent and 26.9 percent). Sustained-release bupropion, however, was associated with a greater reduction (from baseline to the end of this study) in QIDS-SR-16 scores than was buspirone (25.3 percent vs. 17.1 percent, P<0.04), a lower QIDS-SR-16 score at the end of this study (8.0 vs. 9.1, P<0.02), and a lower dropout rate due to intolerance (12.5 percent vs. 20.6 percent, P<0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Augmentation of citalopram with either sustained-release bupropion or buspirone appears to be useful in actual clinical settings. Augmentation with sustained-release bupropion does have certain advantages, including a greater reduction in the number and severity of symptoms and fewer side effects and adverse events. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00021528.).

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.

Sex differences in response to citalopram: a STAR*D report.

OBJECTIVE: Controversy exists as to whether women with depression respond better to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) than men. The purpose of this report was to determine whether men and women differ in their responses to treatment with the SSRI citalopram using a large sample of real world patients from primary and psychiatric specialty care settings. METHOD: As part of the sequenced treatment alternatives to relieve depression (STAR *D) study, 2876 participants were treated with citalopram for up to 12-14 weeks. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics and outcomes were gathered and compared between men and women. RESULTS: At baseline, women were younger, had more severe depressive symptoms and were more likely to have: early onset; previous suicide attempt(s); a family history of depression, alcohol abuse or drug abuse; atypical symptom features; and one or more of several concurrent psychiatric disorders. Despite greater baseline severity and more Axis I comorbidities, women were more likely to reach remission and response with citalopram than men. CONCLUSIONS: Women have a better response to the SSRI citalopram than men, which may be due to sex-specific biological differences particularly in serotonergic systems.

Identifying risk for attrition during treatment for depression.

BACKGROUND: Understanding patients' ambivalence about treatment persistence may be useful in tailoring retention interventions for individual patients with major depressive disorder. METHODS: Participants (n = 265) with major depressive disorder were enrolled into an 8-week trial with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. At baseline and week 2, the participants were asked about their intent to return for the next visit, complete the study and continue in the study should they experience side effects or no improvement. Dropouts were defined as participants who discontinued attending clinic visits before completing the trial. RESULTS: Participants who at baseline reported an uncertain/negative intent to continue if they experienced side effects or no improvement dropped out at a significantly higher rate by weeks 6 and 8. Uncertain/negative intent at week 2 predicted attrition at all following visits. Dropouts without side effects were more likely to have reported an uncertain/negative intent to attend at both baseline and week 2, while dropouts who experienced side effects were more likely to have reported an uncertain/negative intent to attend only at baseline. Positive intent to continue was associated with greater symptom improvement in both dropouts and completers despite the possibility of lack of efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Participants' pretreatment concerns about continuing antidepressant treatment in the presence of side effects signals challenges to the completion of a full 8-week acute phase treatment, even if the participant does not develop side effects. Individualized review of concerns and tailoring appropriate interventions may be necessary to reduce attrition.

Income and attrition in the treatment of depression: a STAR*D report.

BACKGROUND: Attrition, or dropping out of treatment, remains a major issue in the care of depressed outpatients. Whether different factors are associated with attrition for different socioeconomic groups is not known. This report assessed whether attrition rates and predictors of attrition differed among depressed outpatients with different income levels. METHODS: Outpatients with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder treated for up to 14 weeks with citalopram in the first step of the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study were divided by household incomes of <$20,000, $20,000-<$40,000, and >or=$40,000. Attrition rates and sociodemographic and clinical correlates of attrition were identified for each group. RESULTS: Regardless of income level, remission rates were lower for participants who dropped out of treatment. Attrition rates increased as income decreased. For all income levels, younger age was independently associated with attrition. For the lowest income level, less education, better mental health functioning, being on public insurance, and having more concurrent Axis I conditions were associated with a greater likelihood of attrition. For the middle income group, less education, better mental health functioning, being Black or of another non-White race, and treatment in a psychiatric versus primary-care setting predicted greater attrition. For the highest income group, being Hispanic, having a family history of drug abuse, and melancholic features predicted attrition. Atypical symptom features (middle income group) and recurrent depression (highest income group) were associated with retention. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to retain patients in antidepressant treatment should focus especially on less educated patients with lower household incomes and younger patients.

Difference in treatment outcome in outpatients with anxious versus nonanxious depression: a STAR*D report.

OBJECTIVE: About half of outpatients with major depressive disorder also have clinically meaningful levels of anxiety. The authors conducted a secondary data analysis to compare antidepressant treatment outcomes for patients with anxious and nonanxious major depression in Levels 1 and 2 of the STAR*D study. METHOD: A total of 2,876 adult outpatients with major depressive disorder, enrolled from 18 primary and 23 psychiatric care sites, received citalopram in Level 1 of STAR*D. In Level 2, a total of 1,292 patients who did not remit with or tolerate citalopram were randomly assigned either to switch to sustained-release bupropion (N=239), sertraline (N=238), or extended-release venlafaxine (N=250) or to continue taking citalopram and receive augmentation with sustained-release bupropion (N=279) or buspirone (N=286). Treatment could last up to 14 weeks in each level. Patients were designated as having anxious depression if their anxiety/somatization factor score from the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) was 7 or higher at baseline. Rates of remission and response as well as times to remission and response were compared between patients with anxious depression and those with nonanxious depression. RESULTS: In Level 1 of STAR*D, 53.2% of patients had anxious depression. Remission was significantly less likely and took longer to occur in these patients than in those with nonanxious depression. Ratings of side effect frequency, intensity, and burden, as well as the number of serious adverse events, were significantly greater in the anxious depression group. Similarly, in Level 2, patients with anxious depression fared significantly worse in both the switching and augmentation options. CONCLUSIONS: Anxious depression is associated with poorer acute outcomes than nonanxious depression following antidepressant treatment.

Family history of completed suicide and characteristics of major depressive disorder: a STAR*D (sequenced treatment alternatives to relieve depression) study.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians routinely ask patients with non-psychotic major depressive disorder (MDD) about their family history of suicide. It is unknown, however, whether patients with a family member who committed suicide differ from those without such a history. METHODS: Patients were recruited for the STAR*D multicenter trial. At baseline, patients were asked to report first-degree relatives who had died from suicide. Differences in demographic and clinical features for patients with and without a family history of suicide were assessed. RESULTS: Patients with a family history of suicide (n=142/4001; 3.5%) were more likely to have a family history of MDD, bipolar disorder, or any mood disorder, and familial substance abuse disorder, but not suicidal thoughts as compared to those without such a history. The group with familial suicide had a more pessimistic view of the future and an earlier age of onset of MDD. No other meaningful differences were found in depressive symptoms, severity, recurrence, depressive subtype, or daily function. CONCLUSIONS: A history of completed suicide in a family member was associated with minimal clinical differences in the cross-sectional presentation of outpatients with MDD. Limitations of the study include lack of information about family members who had attempted suicide and the age of the probands when their family member died. STAR*D assessments were limited to those needed to ascertain diagnosis and treatment response and did not include a broader range of psychological measures.

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.

Acceptability of second-step treatments to depressed outpatients: a STAR*D report.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment of major depressive disorder typically entails implementing treatments in a stepwise fashion until a satisfactory outcome is achieved. This study sought to identify factors that affect patients' willingness to accept different second-step treatment approaches. METHOD: Participants in the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) trial who had unsatisfactory outcomes after initial treatment with citalopram were eligible for a randomized second-step treatment trial. An equipoise-stratified design allowed participants to exclude or include specific treatment strategies. Analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with the acceptability of the following second-step treatments: cognitive therapy versus no cognitive therapy, any switch strategy versus any augmentation strategy (including cognitive therapy), and a medication switch strategy only versus a medication augmentation strategy only. RESULTS: Of the 1,439 participants who entered second-step treatment, 1% accepted all treatment strategies, 3% accepted only cognitive therapy, and 26% accepted cognitive therapy (thus, 71% did not accept cognitive therapy). Those with higher educational levels or a family history of a mood disorder were more likely to accept cognitive therapy. Participants in primary care settings and those who experienced a greater side effect burden or a lower reduction in symptom severity with citalopram were more likely to accept a switch strategy as compared with an augmentation strategy. Those with concurrent drug abuse and recurrent major depressive disorder were less likely to accept a switch strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Few participants accepted all treatments. Acceptance of cognitive therapy was primarily associated with sociodemographic characteristics, while acceptance of a treatment switch was associated with the results of the initial treatment.

Predictors of attrition during initial (citalopram) treatment for depression: a STAR*D report.

OBJECTIVE: Premature attrition from treatment may lead to worse outcomes and compromise the integrity of clinical trials in major depressive disorder. The purpose of this study was to identify the pretreatment predictors of attrition during acute treatment with citalopram in a large, "real world" clinical trial. METHOD: A total of 4,041 adult outpatients with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder were enrolled in treatment with citalopram for up to 14 weeks. Attrition was defined as "immediate" (patients who attended a baseline visit only) or "later" (patients who attended at least one postbaseline visit but who dropped out before the 12-week visit). RESULTS: Overall, 26% of enrolled patients dropped out of the acute phase treatment for nonmedical reasons. Of these, 34% dropped out immediately, 59% dropped out by week 12, and 7% dropped out after 12 weeks. Immediate attrition was associated with younger age, less education, and higher perceived mental health functioning. Attrition later in treatment was associated with younger age, less education, and African American race. Experience with more than one episode of depression was associated with less attrition. CONCLUSIONS: In clinical trials and clinical practice, several time points in treatment may provide opportunities to engage and encourage populations at higher risk for attrition and populations with high-risk presentation of illness. Additionally, more aggressive forms of treatment implemented earlier in the treatment process in order to increase the likelihood of more rapid efficacy may reduce dropout rates.

Maximizing the adequacy of medication treatment in controlled trials and clinical practice: STAR(*)D measurement-based care.

The success of well-developed protocols has been limited in real-world practice, where even effective strategies have not been sufficient to meet patient needs in routine clinical care owing to Axis I and III comorbidities. The Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR(*)D) trial required that antidepressant medication treatment be optimal regarding dose and duration, yet accommodate flexibility to ensure safety given the wide range of comorbid general medical and psychiatric disorders allowed in the trial. The objective of this study was to develop a measurement-based care (MBC) approach and an automated feedback system to ensure adequate and safe antidepressant treatment delivery suitable for both clinical research and routine practice. Ratings of depressive symptom severity and side-effect frequency, intensity, and burden were obtained at each treatment visit using the MBC system that (1) guided medication dose adjustments and treatment duration, (2) documented clinician adherence to treatment recommendations, and (3) provided prompt feedback to clinicians to enhance appropriate treatment decisions. Physician adherence to protocol-specific treatment was monitored based on measured symptoms and side-effect burden, and dose and duration of antidepressant at each critical decision point during the acute phase treatment of major depression. Feedback was provided at the point of care by the clinical coordinators, assisted by Web-based reports following each treatment visit. On the basis of the first treatment step with citalopram, over 85% of treatment encounters had appropriate fidelity to recommendations. Most deviations from treatment recommendations occurred late in treatment and were often justifiable. MBC proved to be feasible and effective in busy primary and psychiatric settings. This approach signals a paradigm shift toward the use of measurement-based clinical decisions, both at the point of care and following each visit, to deliver optimal pharmacotherapy for depression.