Multi-trial, aggregated, individual participant data mega-analysis of short-term antidepressant versus mood stabilizer monotherapy of bipolar type II major depressive episode.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have systematically examined the safety and effectiveness of antidepressant versus mood stabilizer monotherapy of bipolar II depression. To date, there are no aggregated or mega-analyses of prospective trials of individual participant-level data (IPD) to inform future treatment guidelines on the relative safety and effectiveness of antidepressant or lithium monotherapy. METHODS: Data from a series of four independent, similarly designed trials of antidepressant or lithium monotherapy (where longitudinal IPD were available) (n = 393) were aggregated into an IPD dataset (i.e., mega-analysis). Hierarchical log-linear growth models were used to analyze primary outcome of change over time in Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) scores; while secondary outcomes examined Clinical Global Impressions severity (CGI/S) and change (CGI/C) scores, and change over time in Young Mania Rating (YMR) scores. RESULTS: Relative to lithium monotherapy, antidepressant monotherapy demonstrated significantly greater symptom reduction on HRSD scores across time (b = -2.33, t = -6.68, p < 0.0001), significantly greater symptom reduction on the CGI/S across time (b = -0.414, t = -6.32, p < 0.001), and a significant improvement in CGI/C across time (b = -0.47, t = -7.43, p < 0.0001). No differences were observed in change over time for YMR scores between antidepressant and lithium monotherapy (b = 0.06, t = 0.49, p = 0.62). CONCLUSION: Findings from this IPD mega-analysis of bipolar II depression trials suggest a divergence from current evidence-based guidelines recommending combined mood stabilizer plus antidepressant therapy. The current mega-analysis suggests that antidepressant monotherapy may provide superior short-term effectiveness without clinically meaningful increase in treatment-emergent hypomanic symptoms compared to lithium monotherapy.

Effectiveness and safety of monoamine oxidase inhibitor treatment for bipolar depression versus unipolar depression: An exploratory case cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with bipolar disorder spend most of their clinical lifetime in the depressive phase of their illness. However, antidepressants are discouraged in the treatment of bipolar depression due to concerns over manic induction and drug ineffectiveness. Some reports suggest that monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) may be safe and effective compared to other antidepressants in treating bipolar depression. The present study compared the safety and effectiveness of MAOI therapy in patients with bipolar versus unipolar depression. METHODS: Data were collected from approximately 2500 clinical research charts of patients treated with MAOI therapy at a university mood disorder clinic between 1983 and 2015. A mixed-effects model was created with patient entered as the random effect. The model included the primary diagnosis (i.e., either unipolar or bipolar depression) and other clinical covariates as fixed-effect predictors. RESULTS: Patients with bipolar depression demonstrated lower post-treatment clinical global impressions/severity scores versus patients with unipolar depression (p = 0.04). Neither group demonstrated a full syndromal manic or hypomanic episode. A higher proportion of patients with bipolar depression reported myoclonic tics and tremors, which may have resulted from concomitant lithium use. Amongst the covariates, only the number of prior antidepressant trials predicted poorer outcomes from MAOI therapy. CONCLUSION: MAOIs may be more effective-and as safe-for patients with bipolar depression versus unipolar depression. Future studies should explore this possible advantage using a larger sample size.

The prescriber's guide to classic MAO inhibitors (phenelzine, tranylcypromine, isocarboxazid) for treatment-resistant depression.

This article is a clinical guide which discusses the "state-of-the-art" usage of the classic monoamine oxidase inhibitor (MAOI) antidepressants (phenelzine, tranylcypromine, and isocarboxazid) in modern psychiatric practice. The guide is for all clinicians, including those who may not be experienced MAOI prescribers. It discusses indications, drug-drug interactions, side-effect management, and the safety of various augmentation strategies. There is a clear and broad consensus (more than 70 international expert endorsers), based on 6 decades of experience, for the recommendations herein exposited. They are based on empirical evidence and expert opinion-this guide is presented as a new specialist-consensus standard. The guide provides practical clinical advice, and is the basis for the rational use of these drugs, particularly because it improves and updates knowledge, and corrects the various misconceptions that have hitherto been prominent in the literature, partly due to insufficient knowledge of pharmacology. The guide suggests that MAOIs should always be considered in cases of treatment-resistant depression (including those melancholic in nature), and prior to electroconvulsive therapy-while taking into account of patient preference. In selected cases, they may be considered earlier in the treatment algorithm than has previously been customary, and should not be regarded as drugs of last resort; they may prove decisively effective when many other treatments have failed. The guide clarifies key points on the concomitant use of incorrectly proscribed drugs such as methylphenidate and some tricyclic antidepressants. It also illustrates the straightforward "bridging" methods that may be used to transition simply and safely from other antidepressants to MAOIs.

Relative Effectiveness of Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitor and Tricyclic Antidepressant Combination Therapy for Treatment-Resistant Depression.

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND: We examined the relative safety and effectiveness of adding a monoamine oxidase inhibitor (MAOI) to a failed tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) trial versus adding a TCA to a failed MAOI trial or adding a TCA to a failed TCA trial in treatment-resistant depression. METHODS/PROCEDURES: Data were retrospectively harvested from approximately 2500 treatment charts of subjects with treatment-resistant depression who attended a university mood disorders clinic between 1983 and 2015. Hierarchical linear modeling was used to examine the effectiveness of treatment condition on outcome. Relative adverse event profiles were also examined. FINDINGS/RESULTS: Eighty-four treatment outcome observations were made from 54 subjects who received combination therapy: TCA plus TCA (n = 22), TCA plus MAOI (n = 44), and MAOI plus TCA (n = 18). Treatment condition predicted a poorer (albeit not statistically significant) outcome for TCA plus TCA compared with TCA plus MAOI, or MAOI plus TCA therapy (P = 0.098). Specific adverse events occurred with significantly greater frequency between treatment groups; that is, impotence was more frequent with TCA plus MAOI therapy; headaches and insomnia were more frequent with MAOI plus TCA therapy; and constipation was more frequent with TCA plus TCA therapy. There were no reported or observed hypertensive or serotonergic events. IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to conventional wisdom that combined TCA and MAOI therapy should be avoided, the judicious use of this combination may be relatively safe and effective compared with combined TCA plus TCA therapy. However, sample sizes were limited, and the analysis was nonrandomized and retrospective.

Prior Antidepressant Treatment Trials May Predict a Greater Risk of Depressive Relapse During Antidepressant Maintenance Therapy.

BACKGROUND: We examined the influence of prior antidepressant treatment trials on the likelihood of depressive relapse, and time to depressive relapse, during maintenance therapy of bipolar II disorder in treatment-responsive subjects who had recovered from a major depressive episode. METHODS: Data were derived from a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial of 148 adult subjects with bipolar II major depressive episode who were initially administered open-label fluoxetine monotherapy for 12 weeks. Remitters with a final Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score of 8 or lower were then randomized to continuation therapy with either fluoxetine (n = 28), lithium (n = 26), or placebo (n = 27) for 50 additional weeks. RESULTS: An increase in the number of prior antidepressant treatment trials was significantly associated with a greater likelihood of depressive relapse for all treatment conditions taken together [odds ratio (OR) = 1.42, z = 2.49, P = 0.01] and for the 2 active treatment conditions together (OR = 1.51, z = 2.28, P = 0.02). An increase in the number of prior antidepressant trials was also associated with a trend-level shortening in the time to relapse for all treatment conditions taken together (hazard ratio = 1.15; confidence interval, 0.99-1.35; P = 0.07) and a significantly shorter time to relapse for subjects in the 2 active treatment conditions (hazard ratio = 1.30; confidence interval, 1.05-1.62; P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: These findings support prior evidence of a negative influence of the number of prior antidepressant treatment trials on the likelihood of response and suggest that the number of prior antidepressant trials may also be associated with a greater odds of depressive relapse, and a shorter time to relapse, during antidepressant maintenance therapy in recovered depressed subjects with bipolar II disorder.

Revising Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, criteria for the bipolar disorders: Phase I of the AREDOC project.

OBJECTIVE: To derive new criteria sets for defining manic and hypomanic episodes (and thus for defining the bipolar I and II disorders), an international Task Force was assembled and termed AREDOC reflecting its role of Assessment, Revision and Evaluation of DSM and other Operational Criteria. This paper reports on the first phase of its deliberations and interim criteria recommendations. METHOD: The first stage of the process consisted of reviewing Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, and recent International Classification of Diseases criteria, identifying their limitations and generating modified criteria sets for further in-depth consideration. Task Force members responded to recommendations for modifying criteria and from these the most problematic issues were identified. RESULTS: Principal issues focussed on by Task Force members were how best to differentiate mania and hypomania, how to judge 'impairment' (both in and of itself and allowing that functioning may sometimes improve during hypomanic episodes) and concern that rejecting some criteria (e.g. an imposed duration period) might risk false-positive diagnoses of the bipolar disorders. CONCLUSION: This first-stage report summarises the clinical opinions of international experts in the diagnosis and management of the bipolar disorders, allowing readers to contemplate diagnostic parameters that may influence their clinical decisions. The findings meaningfully inform subsequent Task Force stages (involving a further commentary stage followed by an empirical study) that are expected to generate improved symptom criteria for diagnosing the bipolar I and II disorders with greater precision and to clarify whether they differ dimensionally or categorically.

Comparison of treatment outcome using two definitions of rapid cycling in subjects with bipolar II disorder.

OBJECTIVES: We examined differences in treatment outcome between Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Fourth Edition (DSM-IV)-defined rapid cycling and average lifetime-defined rapid cycling in subjects with bipolar II disorder. We hypothesized that, compared with the DSM-IV definition, the average lifetime definition of rapid cycling may better identify subjects with a history of more mood lability and a greater likelihood of hypomanic symptom induction during long-term treatment. METHODS: Subjects ≥18 years old with a bipolar II major depressive episode (n=129) were categorized into DSM-IV- and average lifetime-defined rapid cycling and prospectively treated with either venlafaxine or lithium monotherapy for 12 weeks. Responders (n=59) received continuation monotherapy for six additional months. RESULTS: These exploratory analyses found moderate agreement between the two rapid-cycling definitions (κ=0.56). The lifetime definition captured subjects with more chronic courses of bipolar II depression, whereas the DSM-IV definition captured subjects with more acute symptoms of hypomania. There was no difference between rapid-cycling definitions with respect to the response to acute venlafaxine or lithium monotherapy. However, the lifetime definition was slightly superior to the DSM-IV definition in identifying subjects who went on to experience hypomanic symptoms during continuation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Although sample sizes were limited, the findings suggest that the lifetime definition of rapid cycling may identify individuals with a chronic rapid-cycling course and may also be slightly superior to the DSM-IV definition in identifying individuals with hypomania during relapse-prevention therapy. These findings are preliminary in nature and need replication in larger, prospective, bipolar II studies.

Short-term venlafaxine v. lithium monotherapy for bipolar type II major depressive episodes: effectiveness and mood conversion rate.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists over antidepressant use in bipolar II depression. AIMS: To compare the safety and effectiveness of antidepressantv.mood stabiliser monotherapy for bipolar type II major depressive episodes. METHOD: Randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, 12-week comparison of venlafaxine (n= 65)v.lithium (n= 64) monotherapy in adult out-patients (trial registration numberNCT00602537). RESULTS: Primary outcome - venlafaxine produced a greater response rate (67.7%)v lithium (34.4%,P<0.001). Secondary outcomes - venlafaxine produced a greater remission rate (58.5%v 28.1%,P<0.001); greater decline in depression symptom scores over time (ß = -5.32, s.e. = 1.16, χ(2)= 21.19,P<0.001); greater reduction in global severity scores over time (ß = -1.05, s.e. = 0.22, w(2)= 22.33,P<0.001); and greater improvement in global change scores (ß = -1.31, s.e. = 0.32, χ(2)= 16.95,P<0.001) relative to lithium. No statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences in hypomanic symptoms were observed between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that short-term venlafaxine monotherapy may provide effective antidepressant treatment for bipolar II depression without a statistically significant increase in hypomanic symptoms relative to lithium.

Step-wise loss of antidepressant effectiveness with repeated antidepressant trials in bipolar II depression.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined the relationship between the number of prior antidepressant treatment trials and step-wise increase in pharmacodynamic tolerance (or progressive loss of effectiveness) in subjects with bipolar II depression. METHODS: Subjects ≥18 years old with bipolar II depression (n=129) were randomized to double-blind venlafaxine or lithium carbonate monotherapy for 12 weeks. Responders (n=59) received continuation monotherapy for six additional months. RESULTS: After controlling for baseline covariates of prior medications, there was a 25% reduction in the likelihood of response to treatment with each increase in the number of prior antidepressant trials (odds ratio [OR]=0.75, unstandardized coefficient [B]=-0.29, standard error (SE)=0.12; χ2 =5.70, P<.02], as well as a 32% reduction in the likelihood of remission with each prior antidepressant trial (OR=0.68, B=-0.39, SE=0.13; χ2 =9.71, P=.002). This step-wise increase in pharmacodynamic tolerance occurred in both treatment conditions. Prior selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) therapy was specifically associated with a step-wise increase in tolerance, whereas other prior antidepressants or mood stabilizers were not associated with pharmacodynamic tolerance. Neither the number of prior antidepressants, nor the number of prior SSRIs, or mood stabilizers, were associated with an increase in relapse during continuation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The odds of responding or remitting during venlafaxine or lithium monotherapy were reduced by 25% and 32%, respectively, with each increase in the number of prior antidepressant treatment trials. There was no relationship between prior antidepressant exposure and depressive relapse during continuation therapy of bipolar II disorder.

Efficacy and mood conversion rate during long-term fluoxetine v. lithium monotherapy in rapid- and non-rapid-cycling bipolar II disorder.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists over antidepressant use in rapid-cycling bipolar disorder. AIMS: Exploratory analysis of safety and efficacy of fluoxetine v. lithium monotherapy in individuals with rapid- v. non-rapid-cycling bipolar II disorder. METHOD: Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison of fluoxetine v. lithium monotherapy in patients initially stabilised on fluoxetine monotherapy (trial registration NCT00044616). RESULTS: The proportion of participants with depressive relapse was similar between the rapid- and non-rapid-cycling groups (P = 0.20). The odds of relapse were similar between groups (P = 0.36). The hazard of relapse was similar between groups (hazard ratio 0.87, 95% CI 0.40-1.91). Change in mania rating scores was similar between groups (P = 0.86). There was no difference between groups in the rate of syndromal (P = 0.27) or subsyndromal (P = 0.82) hypomania. CONCLUSIONS: Depressive relapse and treatment-emergent mood conversion episode rates were similar for lithium and fluoxetine monotherapy and placebo during long-term, relapse-prevention therapy of rapid- and non-rapid-cycling bipolar II disorder.

Effectiveness and mood conversion rate of short-term fluoxetine monotherapy in patients with rapid cycling bipolar II depression versus patients with nonrapid cycling bipolar II depression.

OBJECTIVE: We examined the effectiveness and mood conversion rate of fluoxetine monotherapy in patients with rapid cycling bipolar II depression versus patients with nonrapid cycling bipolar II depression. We hypothesized that there would be reduced antidepressant effectiveness and a greater mood conversion rate over time in patients with rapid cycling. METHODS: Open-label fluoxetine monotherapy 10 to 80 mg daily was administered for up to 14 weeks in 42 outpatients with rapid cycling versus 124 outpatients with nonrapid cycling. Outcome measures included the change over time in depression ratings, the proportion of treatment responders and remitters, change over time in mania ratings, and frequency of syndromal and subsyndromal hypomanic episodes. RESULTS: There was a greater reduction in depression rating scores in the patients with rapid cycling versus those with nonrapid cycling (P = 0.04), with similar rates of response (P = 0.18) and remission (P = 0.69). Change in mean mania rating scores was similar in the patients with rapid cycling versus those with nonrapid cycling (P = 0.28). Hypomanic symptoms occurred in a similar proportion of the patients with rapid cycling versus those with nonrapid cycling (P = 0.99). Hypomanic episodes occurred in 5.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.7-18.2) of the patients with rapid cycling versus 3.6% (95% CI, 1.0-8.9) of those with nonrapid cycling (P = 0.65). Subsyndromal hypomania occurred in 13.5% (95% CI, 4.5-28.8) of the patients with rapid cycling versus 9.0% (95% CI, 4.4-15.9) of those with nonrapid cycling (P = 0.43). CONCLUSION: In contrast to reports of reduced effectiveness and increased mood conversion rates in patients with rapid cycling bipolar disorder taking antidepressants, we found greater effectiveness and similar hypomania rates during fluoxetine monotherapy in the patients with rapid cycling bipolar II depression versus those with nonrapid cycling bipolar II depression.

Low brain serotonin transporter binding in major depressive disorder.

We examined midbrain, medial temporal lobe, and basal ganglia serotonin transporter (SERT) distribution volume ratio (DVR) values in subjects with major depressive disorder versus healthy volunteers using a selective SERT radioligand and single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). We hypothesized that the DVR value for SERT binding would be lower in depressed versus non-depressed subjects. [(123)I]-ADAM SPECT scans were acquired from 20 drug free, depressed subjects and 20 drug-free depressed subjects and 10 drug-free healthy volunteers. The primary outcome measure was the DVR value for [(123)I]-ADAM uptake in the midbrain, medial temporal lobe, and basal ganglia regions. Depressed subjects demonstrated significantly lower DVR values in the midbrain, right and left medial temporal lobe, and right and left basal ganglia. There was significant probability that lower DVR values could distinguish between depressed and non-depressed subjects in the midbrain, medial temporal lobe, and the right and left basal ganglia. These findings confirm prior observations of lower SERT binding in depression, and suggest that low SERT binding may represent a putative biomarker of depression. Future studies are needed to confirm these observations.

Chamomile (Matricaria recutita) may provide antidepressant activity in anxious, depressed humans: an exploratory study.

CONTEXT: Anxiety and depression are the most commonly reported psychiatric conditions and frequently occur as comorbid disorders. While the advent of conventional drug therapies has simplified treatment, a large segment of the population goes untreated or declines conventional therapy for financial, cultural, or personal reasons. Therefore, the identification of inexpensive and effective alternative therapies for anxiety and depression is of relevance to public health. OBJECTIVE: The current study explores data from a 2009 clinical chamomile trial in humans to determine if chamomile provides clinically meaningful antidepressant activity versus a placebo. DESIGN: In the 2009 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, the research team examined the antianxiety and antidepressant action of oral chamomile (Matricaria recutita) extract in participants with symptoms of comorbid anxiety and depression. SETTING: In the 2009 study, all of participants' evaluations took place at the Depression Research Unit at the University of Pennsylvania. The study drew participants from patients at the Department of Family Medicine and Community Health's primary care clinic at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. PARTICIPANTS: Of the 57 participants in the 2009 trial, 19 had anxiety with comorbid depression; 16 had anxiety with a past history of depression; and 22 had anxiety with no current or past depression. INTERVENTION: The intervention and placebo groups in the 2009 trial received identically appearing 220-mg capsules containing either pharmaceutical-grade chamomile extract standardized to a content of 1.2% apigenin or a placebo (ie, lactose monohydrate NF), respectively. OUTCOME MEASURES: In the current study, the research team used generalized estimating equations analysis to identify clinically meaningful changes over time in scores from the Hamilton Depression Rating (HAM-D) questionnaire among treatment groups. RESULTS: In the current study, the research team observed a significantly greater reduction over time in total HAM-D scores for chamomile vs placebo in all participants (P < .05). The team also observed a clinically meaningful but nonsignificant trend for a greater reduction in total HAM-D scores for chamomile vs placebo in participants with current comorbid depression (P = .062). When the team examined the HAM-D core mood item scores, it observed a significantly greater reduction over time for chamomile vs placebo in all participants (P < .05) and a clinically meaningful but nonsignificant trend for a greater reduction over time for chamomile vs placebo in participants without current or past depression (P = .06). CONCLUSION: Chamomile may provide clinically meaningful antidepressant activity that occurs in addition to its previously observed anxiolytic activity.

Efficacy and mood conversion rate of short-term fluoxetine monotherapy of bipolar II major depressive episode.

OBJECTIVE: As part of a long-term, relapse-prevention study of antidepressant versus mood stabilizer monotherapy of bipolar II major depressive episode, we prospectively examined the efficacy and mood conversion rate of initial fluoxetine monotherapy. We hypothesized that there would be a statistically significant reduction in depressive symptoms without a clinically meaningful increase in mood conversion symptoms. METHODS: Patients received open-label fluoxetine monotherapy 10 to 80 mg daily for up to 14 weeks. Primary outcome was change over time in Hamilton Depression Rating score, with secondary outcomes including the proportion of treatment responders and remitters, change over time in Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) score, and frequency of mood conversion episodes. RESULTS: One hundred forty-eight patients had at least 1 post-baseline measurement. Mean Hamilton Depression Rating score decreased by 9.0 points (P < 0.0005). There were 88 responder patients (59.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 51.1%-67.4%) (P < 0.0005) and 86 remitter patients (58.1%; 95% CI, 49.7%-66.2%) (P < 0.0005). Mean time to remission was 64.4 days (95% CI, 59.1-69.7 days). Six patients (4.1%; 95% CI, 1.5%-8.6%) (P < 0.0005) had hypomania, and 29 patients (19.6%; 95% CI, 13.5%-26.9%) (P < 0.0005) had subsyndromal hypomania, which did not result in treatment discontinuation. Six patients (4.1%; 95% CI, 1.5%-8.6%) had a YMRS score of 8 or greater (P < 0.0005), and 4 patients (2.7%; 95% CI, 0.7%-6.8%) (P < 0.0005) had a YMRS score of 12 or greater at any study visit. CONCLUSIONS: Although design limitations constrain the interpretation of the current findings, fluoxetine monotherapy may be an effective short-term treatment of bipolar II major depressive episode with a relatively low rate of syndromal hypomanic episodes.

Antidepressant drug effects and depression severity: a patient-level meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Antidepressant medications represent the best established treatment for major depressive disorder, but there is little evidence that they have a specific pharmacological effect relative to pill placebo for patients with less severe depression. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the relative benefit of medication vs placebo across a wide range of initial symptom severity in patients diagnosed with depression. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from January 1980 through March 2009, along with references from meta-analyses and reviews. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized placebo-controlled trials of antidepressants approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the treatment of major or minor depressive disorder were selected. Studies were included if their authors provided the requisite original data, they comprised adult outpatients, they included a medication vs placebo comparison for at least 6 weeks, they did not exclude patients on the basis of a placebo washout period, and they used the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS). Data from 6 studies (718 patients) were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Individual patient-level data were obtained from study authors. RESULTS: Medication vs placebo differences varied substantially as a function of baseline severity. Among patients with HDRS scores below 23, Cohen d effect sizes for the difference between medication and placebo were estimated to be less than 0.20 (a standard definition of a small effect). Estimates of the magnitude of the superiority of medication over placebo increased with increases in baseline depression severity and crossed the threshold defined by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence for a clinically significant difference at a baseline HDRS score of 25. CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of benefit of antidepressant medication compared with placebo increases with severity of depression symptoms and may be minimal or nonexistent, on average, in patients with mild or moderate symptoms. For patients with very severe depression, the benefit of medications over placebo is substantial.

Putative Antidepressant Effect of Chamomile (Matricaria chamomilla L.) Oral Extract in Subjects with Comorbid Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Depression.

Objectives: This exploratory analysis examined the putative antidepressant effect of Matricaria chamomilla L. (chamomile) extract in subjects with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) with or without comorbid depression. It was hypothesized that chamomile extract would demonstrate similar anxiolytic activity in both subgroups, but superior antidepressant activity in GAD subjects with comorbid depression. Design: As part of a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of chamomile extract for relapse prevention of GAD, 179 subjects received initial therapy with open-label chamomile extract 1500 mg daily for 8 weeks. Linear mixed-effect models were used to identify clinically meaningful changes in anxiety and depression symptoms between diagnostic subgroups. Settings/Location: The study took place at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, PA. Subjects: Subjects were ≥18 years old with a primary DSM IV-TR diagnosis of GAD. They were subcategorized into two diagnostic groups: GAD without comorbid depression (n = 100) and GAD with comorbid depression (n = 79). Interventions: Open-label chamomile extract 1500 mg was given daily for 8 weeks. Outcome measures: Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD-7), Hamilton rating scale for anxiety, Beck anxiety inventory, Hamilton rating scale for depression (HRSD), the six-item core HRSD (items 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, and 13), and the Beck depression inventory (BDI). Results: The authors observed similar anxiolytic effects over time in both diagnostic subgroups. However, there was a greater reduction in HRSD core symptom scores (p < 0.023), and a trend level reduction in HRSD total scores (p = 0.14) and in BPI total scores (p = 0.060) in subjects with comorbid depression. Conclusions: M. chamomilla L. may produce clinically meaningful antidepressant effects in addition to its anxiolytic activity in subjects with GAD and comorbid depression. Future controlled trials in subjects with primary major depressive disorder are needed to validate this preliminary observation.

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

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

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of oral Matricaria recutita (chamomile) extract therapy for generalized anxiety disorder.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled efficacy and tolerability trial of Matricaria recutita (chamomile) extract therapy in patients with mild to moderate generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). We hypothesized that chamomile would be superior to placebo in reducing GAD symptoms with a comparable tolerability profile. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-one outpatients with mild to moderate GAD were enrolled, and 57 were randomized to either double-blind chamomile extract (n = 28) or placebo therapy (n = 29) for 8 weeks. The study was powered to detect a statistically significant and clinically meaningful group difference in change over time in total Hamilton Anxiety Rating (HAM-A) scores. Secondary outcomes included change in the Beck Anxiety Inventory, Psychological Well Being, and Clinical Global Impression Severity scores and the proportion of patients with 50% reduction or more in baseline HAM-A score. RESULTS: We observed a significantly greater reduction in mean total HAM-A score during chamomile versus placebo therapy (P = 0.047). Although the study was not powered to identify small to moderate differences in secondary outcomes, we observed a positive change in all secondary outcomes in the same direction as the primary outcome measure. One patient in each treatment group discontinued therapy for adverse events. The proportion of patients experiencing 0, 1, 2, or 3 adverse events or more was not significantly different between groups (P = 0.417). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first controlled clinical trial of chamomile extract for GAD. The results suggest that chamomile may have modest anxiolytic activity in patients with mild to moderate GAD. Future studies are needed to replicate these observations.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of Cimicifuga racemosa (black cohosh) in women with anxiety disorder due to menopause.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group trial of the efficacy and tolerability of Cimicifuga racemosa (black cohosh) extract for the treatment of anxiety disorder due to menopause. We hypothesized that black cohosh would be superior to placebo in reducing anxiety symptoms of menopause, with a comparable tolerability profile to placebo. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects were randomized to therapy with either pharmaceutical-grade black cohosh extract (n = 15) or placebo (n = 13) for up to 12 weeks. The primary outcome measure was changed over time in total Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) scores. Secondary outcomes included a change in scores on the Beck Anxiety Inventory, Green Climacteric Scale (GCS), and Psychological General Well-Being Index (PGWBI) and the proportion of patients with a change of 50% or higher in baseline HAM-A scores. RESULTS: There was neither a significant group difference in change over time in total HAM-A scores (P = 0.294) nor a group difference in the proportion of subjects with a reduction of 50% or higher in baseline HAM-A scores at study end point (P = 0.79). There was a significantly greater reduction in the total GCS scores during placebo (vs black cohosh; P = 0.035) but no group difference in change over time in the GCS subscale scores or in the PGWBI (P = 0.140). One subject (3.6%) taking black cohosh discontinued treatment because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: We found no statistically significant anxiolytic effect of black cohosh (vs placebo). However, small sample size, choice of black cohosh preparation, and dosage used may have been limiting factors producing negative results.

Venlafaxine versus lithium monotherapy of rapid and non-rapid cycling patients with bipolar II major depressive episode: a randomized, parallel group, open-label trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of controlled clinical data on the best initial therapy for treating patients with bipolar type II (BP II) major depressive episode (MDE). In this analysis, we examined the safety and antidepressant efficacy of short-term venlafaxine versus lithium monotherapy in rapid and non-rapid cycling patients with BP II MDE. We hypothesized that lithium would have superior efficacy to venlafaxine, with fewer syndromal and sub-syndromal hypomanic and mixed mood conversions in the rapid cycling BP II MDE patients. METHODS: Patients were randomized to monotherapy with either venlafaxine 37.5-375 mg daily or lithium 300-2100 mg daily for 12 weeks. The primary outcome measure was the 28-item Hamilton Depression Rating (HAM-D 28), with embedded 'typical' HAM-D 17 and 'atypical' HAM-D 17-R symptom scores. Secondary outcomes included the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), clinical global impressions severity (CGI/S) and change (CGI/C) ratings, the proportion of responders (with > or =50% reduction in baseline HAM-D score) and remitters (with a final HAM-D score or =4 affective episodes per year). We did not employ a patient-recorded daily chrono-record to identify ultra-short mood conversions. The study used a randomized, parallel group, open-label design. CONCLUSION: These observations from this exploratory analysis suggest that venlafaxine monotherapy may be more effective than lithium monotherapy, with a similar mood conversion rate, in rapid and non-rapid cycling patients with BP II MDE. These data support prior observations that venlafaxine monotherapy may be effective initial treatment for BP II MDE.