Enhanced amygdala-cingulate connectivity associates with better mood in both healthy and depressive individuals after sleep deprivation.

Sleep loss robustly disrupts mood and emotion regulation in healthy individuals but can have a transient antidepressant effect in a subset of patients with depression. The neural mechanisms underlying this paradoxical effect remain unclear. Previous studies suggest that the amygdala and dorsal nexus (DN) play key roles in depressive mood regulation. Here, we used functional MRI to examine associations between amygdala- and DN-related resting-state connectivity alterations and mood changes after one night of total sleep deprivation (TSD) in both healthy adults and patients with major depressive disorder using strictly controlled in-laboratory studies. Behavioral data showed that TSD increased negative mood in healthy participants but reduced depressive symptoms in 43% of patients. Imaging data showed that TSD enhanced both amygdala- and DN-related connectivity in healthy participants. Moreover, enhanced amygdala connectivity to the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) after TSD associated with better mood in healthy participants and antidepressant effects in depressed patients. These findings support the key role of the amygdala-cingulate circuit in mood regulation in both healthy and depressed populations and suggest that rapid antidepressant treatment may target the enhancement of amygdala-ACC connectivity.

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

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

Insomnia.

Insomnia is highly prevalent in clinical practice, occurring in up to 50% of primary care patients. Insomnia can present independently or alongside other medical conditions or mental health disorders and is a risk factor for the development and exacerbation of these other disorders if not treated. In 2016, the American College of Physicians recommended that insomnia be specifically targeted for treatment. The recommended first-line treatment for insomnia, whether the underlying cause has been identified or not, is cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia (CBT-I). Currently, there is no global consensus regarding which pharmacological treatment has the best efficacy or risk-benefit ratio. Both CBT-I and pharmacological intervention are thought to have similar acute effects, but only CBT-I has shown durable long-term effects after treatment discontinuation. Administering a combined treatment of CBT-I and medication could decrease the latency to treatment response, but might diminish the durability of the positive treatment effects of CBT-I.

Treatment resistance in psychiatry: state of the art and new directions.

Treatment resistance affects 20-60% of patients with psychiatric disorders; and is associated with increased healthcare burden and costs up to ten-fold higher relative to patients in general. Whilst there has been a recent increase in the proportion of psychiatric research focussing on treatment resistance (R2 = 0.71, p < 0.0001), in absolute terms this is less than 1% of the total output and grossly out of proportion to its prevalence and impact. Here, we provide an overview of treatment resistance, considering its conceptualisation, assessment, epidemiology, impact, and common neurobiological models. We also review new treatments in development and future directions. We identify 23 consensus guidelines on its definition, covering schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, bipolar affective disorder, and obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). This shows three core components to its definition, but also identifies heterogeneity and lack of criteria for a number of disorders, including panic disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and substance dependence. We provide a reporting check-list to aid comparisons across studies. We consider the concept of pseudo-resistance, linked to poor adherence or other factors, and provide an algorithm for the clinical assessment of treatment resistance. We identify nine drugs and a number of non-pharmacological approaches being developed for treatment resistance across schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, bipolar affective disorder, and OCD. Key outstanding issues for treatment resistance include heterogeneity and absence of consensus criteria, poor understanding of neurobiology, under-investment, and lack of treatments. We make recommendations to address these issues, including harmonisation of definitions, and research into the mechanisms and novel interventions to enable targeted and personalised therapeutic approaches.

Lithium plus antipsychotics or anticonvulsants for bipolar disorder: Comparing clinical response and metabolic changes.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with bipolar disorder treated with lithium often require additional antipsychotics or anticonvulsants. However, the comparative effectiveness and safety of these agents as add-on to lithium has not been studied. METHODS: This secondary analysis combined two similar 24-week trials on outpatients with bipolar disorder randomized to lithium (target serum level 0.4-0.6 mEq/L). Guideline-based adjunctive antipsychotics (Li+AP) and anticonvulsants (Li+AC) could be used if clinically indicated and was assessed at every study visit. Response was measured on the Clinical Global Impression scale and we performed adjusted mixed effects linear regression analyses. Analysis of variance tests compared metabolic measures including a binary diagnosis of metabolic syndrome before and after 24 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: Among 379 outpatients (57% female, mean age 38 years, mean Clinical Global Impression 4.4), users of Li+AP (N = 50, primarily quetiapine and aripiprazole) improved to a similar degree (mean Clinical Global Impression improvement = 1.6, standard deviation = 1.5) as those using lithium-only (i.e. without adjunctive antipsychotics or anticonvulsants, N = 149, mean Clinical Global Impression improvement = 1.7, standard deviation = 1.4) (p = 0.59). Users of Li+AC (N = 107, primarily lamotrigine and valproate, mean Clinical Global Impression improvement = 1.2, standard deviation = 1.3) and users of Li+AP+AC (N = 73, mean Clinical Global Impression improvement = 1.1, standard deviation = 1.3) showed worse response compared to lithium-only users (all p < 0.01). When comparing Li+AP to Li+AC, users of Li+AP improved slightly better on general (p = 0.05) and manic symptoms (p = 0.01), but showed a worse development of glucose, triglycerides, and metabolic syndrome. CONCLUSION: Despite treatment-by-indication confounding, these findings are relevant for real-world treatment settings and emphasize the need for randomized trials on this clinically important topic.

Clinical research challenges posed by difficult-to-treat depression.

Approximately one-third of individuals in a major depressive episode will not achieve sustained remission despite multiple, well-delivered treatments. These patients experience prolonged suffering and disproportionately utilize mental and general health care resources. The recently proposed clinical heuristic of 'difficult-to-treat depression' (DTD) aims to broaden our understanding and focus attention on the identification, clinical management, treatment selection, and outcomes of such individuals. Clinical trial methodologies developed to detect short-term therapeutic effects in treatment-responsive populations may not be appropriate in DTD. This report reviews three essential challenges for clinical intervention research in DTD: (1) how to define and subtype this heterogeneous group of patients; (2) how, when, and by what methods to select, acquire, compile, and interpret clinically meaningful outcome metrics; and (3) how to choose among alternative clinical trial design options to promote causal inference and generalizability. The boundaries of DTD are uncertain, and an evidence-based taxonomy and reliable assessment tools are preconditions for clinical research and subtyping. Traditional outcome metrics in treatment-responsive depression may not apply to DTD, as they largely reflect the only short-term symptomatic change and do not incorporate durability of benefit, side effect burden, or sustained impact on quality of life or daily function. The trial methodology will also require modification as trials will likely be of longer duration to examine the sustained impact, raising complex issues regarding control group selection, blinding and its integrity, and concomitant treatments.

Childhood trauma and treatment outcomes during mood-stabilising treatment with lithium or quetiapine among outpatients with bipolar disorder.

BACKGROUND: Childhood trauma affects the course of mood disorders. Researchers are now considering childhood trauma as an influential factor in the treatment of mood disorders. However, the role of childhood trauma in the treatment of bipolar disorder remains understudied. METHODS: The effect of childhood trauma on treatment outcomes was evaluated among participants randomised to treatment with lithium or quetiapine in the Clinical and Health Outcomes Initiatives in Comparative Effectiveness for Bipolar Disorder (Bipolar CHOICE) study by clinician assessment. Mixed effects linear regression models were used to analyse rates of improvement in symptom severity (assessed with the Bipolar Inventory of Symptoms Scale and the Clinical Global Impression Scale for Bipolar Disorder) and functional impairment (assessed with the Longitudinal Interval Follow-up Evaluation-Range of Impaired Functioning Tool). RESULTS: A history of any childhood trauma was reported by 52.7% of the sample (N = 476). Although participants with a history of any childhood trauma presented with greater symptom severity and functional impairment at most study visits, participants with and without a history of any childhood trauma showed similar rates of improvement in symptom severity and functional impairment over the 24 weeks of treatment. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to explore the association between childhood trauma and treatment outcomes during treatment with lithium or quetiapine in the context of a randomised trial. In Bipolar CHOICE, a history of childhood trauma did not inhibit improvement in symptom severity or functional impairment. Nevertheless, these findings need replication across different settings.

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.

Addressing anhedonia to increase depression treatment engagement.

Anhedonia, or reward system dysfunction, is associated with poorer treatment outcomes among depressed individuals. The role of anhedonia in treatment engagement, however, has not yet been explored. We review research on components of reward functioning impaired in depression, including effort valuation, reward anticipation, initial responsiveness, reward learning, reward probability, and reward delay, highlighting potential barriers to treatment engagement associated with these components. We then propose interventions to improve treatment initiation and continuation by addressing deficits in each component of reward functioning, focusing on modifications of existing evidence-based interventions to meet the needs of individuals with heightened anhedonia. We describe potential settings for these interventions and times at which they can be delivered during the process of referring individuals to mental health treatment, conducting intakes or assessments, and providing treatment. Additionally, we note the advantages of using screening processes already in place in primary care, workplace, school, and online settings to identify individuals with heightened anhedonia who may benefit from these interventions. We conclude with suggestions for future research on the impact of anhedonia on treatment engagement and the efficacy of interventions to address it. PRACTITIONER POINTS: Many depressed individuals who might benefit from treatment do not initiate it or discontinue early. One barrier to treatment engagement may be anhedonia, a core symptom of depression characterized by loss of interest or pleasure in usual activities. We describe brief interventions to improve treatment engagement in individuals with anhedonia that can be implemented during the referral process or early in treatment. We argue that interventions aiming to improve treatment engagement in depressed individuals that target anhedonia may be particularly effective.

Effect of Pharmacogenomic Testing for Drug-Gene Interactions on Medication Selection and Remission of Symptoms in Major Depressive Disorder: The PRIME Care Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Selecting effective antidepressants for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) is an imprecise practice, with remission rates of about 30% at the initial treatment. Objective: To determine whether pharmacogenomic testing affects antidepressant medication selection and whether such testing leads to better clinical outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: A pragmatic, randomized clinical trial that compared treatment guided by pharmacogenomic testing vs usual care. Participants included 676 clinicians and 1944 patients. Participants were enrolled from 22 Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers from July 2017 through February 2021, with follow-up ending November 2021. Eligible patients were those with MDD who were initiating or switching treatment with a single antidepressant. Exclusion criteria included an active substance use disorder, mania, psychosis, or concurrent treatment with a specified list of medications. Interventions: Results from a commercial pharmacogenomic test were given to clinicians in the pharmacogenomic-guided group (n = 966). The comparison group received usual care and access to pharmacogenomic results after 24 weeks (n = 978). Main Outcomes and Measures: The co-primary outcomes were the proportion of prescriptions with a predicted drug-gene interaction written in the 30 days after randomization and remission of depressive symptoms as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) (remission was defined as PHQ-9 ≤ 5). Remission was analyzed as a repeated measure across 24 weeks by blinded raters. Results: Among 1944 patients who were randomized (mean age, 48 years; 491 women [25%]), 1541 (79%) completed the 24-week assessment. The estimated risks for receiving an antidepressant with none, moderate, and substantial drug-gene interactions for the pharmacogenomic-guided group were 59.3%, 30.0%, and 10.7% compared with 25.7%, 54.6%, and 19.7% in the usual care group. The pharmacogenomic-guided group was more likely to receive a medication with a lower potential drug-gene interaction for no drug-gene vs moderate/substantial interaction (odds ratio [OR], 4.32 [95% CI, 3.47 to 5.39]; P < .001) and no/moderate vs substantial interaction (OR, 2.08 [95% CI, 1.52 to 2.84]; P = .005) (P < .001 for overall comparison). Remission rates over 24 weeks were higher among patients whose care was guided by pharmacogenomic testing than those in usual care (OR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.05 to 1.57]; P = .02; risk difference, 2.8% [95% CI, 0.6% to 5.1%]) but were not significantly higher at week 24 when 130 patients in the pharmacogenomic-guided group and 126 patients in the usual care group were in remission (estimated risk difference, 1.5% [95% CI, -2.4% to 5.3%]; P = .45). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with MDD, provision of pharmacogenomic testing for drug-gene interactions reduced prescription of medications with predicted drug-gene interactions compared with usual care. Provision of test results had small nonpersistent effects on symptom remission. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03170362.

Efficacy and Safety of Seltorexant as Adjunctive Therapy in Major Depressive Disorder: A Phase 2b, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Adaptive Dose-Finding Study.

BACKGROUND: Seltorexant, a selective antagonist of human orexin-2 receptors, demonstrated antidepressant effects in a previous exploratory study in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: To replicate and extend this observation, a double-blind, adaptive dose-finding study was performed in patients with MDD who had an inadequate response to 1-3 selective serotonin/serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors in the current episode. Patients were randomized (2:1:1) to placebo or seltorexant (20 mg or 40 mg) once-daily, administered adjunctively to the antidepressant the patient had been receiving at screening. After an interim analysis (6 weeks post-randomization of 160th patient), newly recruited patients randomly received (3:3:1) placebo or seltorexant 10 mg or 20 mg; the 40-mg dose was no longer assigned. Patients were stratified by baseline Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) scores (ISI ≥ 15 vs < 15). The primary endpoint was change from baseline Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score at week 6. RESULTS: Mixed-Model for Repeated Measures analysis showed a greater improvement in MADRS total score in the seltorexant 20-mg group vs placebo at weeks 3 and 6; least-square means difference (90% CI): -4.5 (-6.96; -2.07), P = .003; and -3.1 (-6.13; -0.16), P = .083, respectively. The improvement in MADRS score at week 6 for seltorexant 20 mg was greater in patients with baseline ISI ≥ 15 vs those with ISI < 15; least-square means difference (90% CI) vs placebo: -4.9 (-8.98; -0.80) and -0.7 (-5.16; 3.76), respectively. The most common (≥5%) adverse events with seltorexant were somnolence, headache, and nausea. CONCLUSIONS: A clinically meaningful reduction of depressive symptoms was observed for seltorexant 20 mg. In the subset of patients with sleep disturbance (ISI ≥ 15), a larger treatment difference between seltorexant 20 mg and placebo was observed, warranting further investigation. No new safety signal was identified. REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03227224. PREVIOUS PRESENTATION: Poster presented at 58th Annual Meeting of American College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ACNP), December 8-11, 2019, Orlando, FL.

Opioid system modulation with buprenorphine/samidorphan combination for major depressive disorder: two randomized controlled studies.

The endogenous opioid system is thought to play an important role in the regulation of mood. Buprenorphine/samidorphan (BUP/SAM) combination is an investigational opioid system modulator for adjunctive treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). To confirm results from early studies, we report the efficacy and safety of BUP/SAM as adjunctive treatment in patients with MDD and an inadequate response to antidepressant therapy (ADT) in FORWARD-4 and FORWARD-5: two phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies that utilized the same sequential parallel-comparison design. Efficacy was measured using the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). FORWARD-5 achieved the primary endpoint and demonstrated that adjunctive BUP/SAM 2 mg/2 mg was superior to placebo (average difference change from baseline to week 3 through end of treatment [EOT] in MADRS-6 and -10 versus placebo: -1.5, P = 0.018; -1.9, P = 0.026, respectively). FORWARD-4 did not achieve the primary endpoint (change from baseline in MADRS-10 at week 5 versus placebo: -1.8, P = 0.109), although separate analyses showed significant treatment differences at other timepoints using traditional, regulatory-accepted endpoints such as reduction in MADRS-10 at EOT. The pooled analysis of the two studies demonstrated consistently greater reduction in MADRS-10 scores from baseline for BUP/SAM 2 mg/2 mg versus placebo at multiple timepoints including EOT and average change from baseline to week 3 through EOT (-1.8, P = 0.010; -1.8, P = 0.004, respectively). The overall effect size (Hedges' g) in the pooled analyses for MADRS-10 change from baseline to EOT was 0.22. Overall, BUP/SAM was generally well tolerated, with most adverse events (AEs) being mild or moderate in severity. The most common AEs, occurring in ≥5% of patients in the BUP/SAM 2 mg/2 mg treatment group, which was more frequently than the placebo group, included nausea, constipation, dizziness, vomiting, somnolence, fatigue, and sedation. There was minimal evidence of abuse, and no evidence of dependence or opioid withdrawal by AEs or objective measures. This report describes adjunctive BUP/SAM 2 mg/2 mg combination, a therapy with a novel opioidergic mechanism of action, as a potential new treatment option for patients with MDD who have an inadequate response to currently available ADT.

The natural history of insomnia: Does sleep extension differentiate between those that do and do not develop chronic insomnia?

According to the "3P model" of insomnia, the variable that mediates the transition from acute insomnia (AI) to chronic insomnia is "sleep extension" (the behavioural tendency to expand sleep opportunity to compensate for sleep loss). In the present analysis, we sought to evaluate how time in bed (TIB) varies relative to the new onset of AI and chronic insomnia. A total of 1,248 subjects were recruited as good sleepers (GS). Subjects were monitored over 1 year with sleep diaries. State transitions were defined, a priori, for AI, recovered from AI (AI-REC), and for chronic insomnia (AI-CI). Two additional groupings were added based on profiles that were unanticipated: subjects that exhibited persistent poor sleep following AI (AI-PPS [those that neither recovered or developed chronic insomnia]) and subjects that recovered from chronic insomnia (CI-REC). All the groups (GS, AI-REC, AI-CI, AI-PPS and CI-REC) were evaluated for TIB differences with longitudinal mixed effects models. Post hoc analyses for the percentage of the groups that were typed as TIB "restrictors, maintainers, and expanders" were conducted using longitudinal mixed effects models and contingency analyses. Significant differences for pre-post AI TIB were not detected for the insomnia groups. Trends were apparent for the AI-CI group, which suggested that minor increases in TIB occurred weeks before the declared onset of AI. Additionally, it was found that a significantly larger percentage of AI-CI subjects engaged in sleep extension (as compared to GS). The present data suggest that transition from AI to chronic insomnia does not appear to be initiated by sleep extension and the transition may occur before the elapse of 3 months of ≥3 nights of sleep continuity disturbance. Given these findings, it may be that the mismatch between sleep ability and sleep opportunity is perpetuated over time given the failure to "naturally" engage in sleep restriction (as opposed to sleep extension).

The effect of esketamine in patients with treatment-resistant depression with and without comorbid anxiety symptoms or disorder.

BACKGROUND: Comorbid anxiety is generally associated with poorer response to antidepressant treatment. This post hoc analysis explored the efficacy of esketamine plus an antidepressant in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) with or without comorbid anxiety. METHODS: TRANSFORM-2, a double-blind, flexible-dose, 4-week study (NCT02418585), randomized adults with TRD to placebo or esketamine nasal spray, each with a newly-initiated oral antidepressant. Comorbid anxiety was defined as clinically noteworthy anxiety symptoms (7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale [GAD-7] score ≥10) at screening and baseline or comorbid anxiety disorder diagnosis at screening. Treatment effect based on change in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score, and response and remission were examined by presence/absence of comorbid anxiety using analysis of covariance and logistic regression models. RESULTS: Approximately 72% (162/223) of patients had baseline comorbid anxiety. Esketamine-treated patients with and without anxiety demonstrated significant reductions in MADRS (mean [SD] change from baseline at day 28: -21.0 [12.51] and -22.7 [11.98], respectively). Higher rates of response and remission, and a significantly greater decrease in MADRS score at day 28 were observed compared to antidepressant/placebo, regardless of comorbid anxiety (with anxiety: difference in LS means [95% CI] -4.2 [-8.1, -0.3]; without anxiety: -7.5 [-13.7, -1.3]). There was no significant interaction of treatment and comorbid anxiety (p = .371). Notably, in the antidepressant/placebo group improvement was similar in those with and without comorbid anxiety. CONCLUSION: Post hoc data support efficacy of esketamine plus an oral antidepressant in patients with TRD, regardless of comorbid anxiety.

Continuation phase treatment outcomes for switching, combining, or augmenting strategies for treatment-resistant major depressive disorder: A VAST-D report.

BACKGROUND: This secondary analysis of the VA Augmentation and Switching Treatments for Depression study compared the continuation phase treatment outcomes of three commonly used second-step treatment strategies following at least one prior failed medication treatment attempt. METHODS: In total, 1522 outpatients with MDD were randomized to switching to bupropion-SR (S-BUP), combining with bupropion-SR (C-BUP), or augmenting with aripiprazole (A-ARI). Following 12 weeks of acute phase treatment, 725 entered the 24-week continuation treatment phase. Depressive symptom severity, relapse, "emergent" remission, anxiety, suicidal ideation, quality of life, health status, and side effects were compared. RESULTS: We did not find clinically significant differential treatment effects with the exception that A-ARI was associated with less anxiety than S-BUP or C-BUP. Participants who entered continuation treatment as remitters had milder depressive symptom severity and lower relapse rates than those not in remission; they also experienced more improvement on most other outcomes. A-ARI was associated with less anxiety, insomnia, and dry mouth but more somnolence, extrapyramidal effects, akathisia, abnormal laboratory values, and appetite and weight gain. CONCLUSIONS: Continuation treatment is a dynamic period. Regardless of the treatment, participants who entered continuation treatment at Week 12 in full remission continued to have better outcomes over the subsequent 24 weeks than those who were not in remission at the start of the continuation phase.

Adjunctive antidepressant treatment among 763 outpatients with bipolar disorder: Findings from the Bipolar CHOICE and LiTMUS trials.

BACKGROUND: Adjunctive antidepressants are frequently used for bipolar depression but their clinical efficacy has been studied in few trials and little is known about how co-occurring manic symptoms affect treatment response. METHODS: Bipolar Clinical Health Outcomes Initiative in Comparative Effectiveness (N = 482) and Lithium Treatment Moderate-Dose Use Study (N = 281) were similar comparative effectiveness trials on outpatients with bipolar disorder comparing four different randomized treatment arms with adjunctive personalized guideline-based treatment for 24 weeks. Adjunctive antidepressant treatment could be used if clinically indicated and was assessed at every study visit. Adjusted mixed effects linear regression analyses compared users of antidepressants to nonusers overall and in different subcohorts. RESULTS: Of the 763 patients, 282 (37.0%) used antidepressant drugs during the study. Antidepressant users had less improvement compared to nonusers on the Clinical Global Impression Scale for Bipolar Disorder and on measures of depression. This was particularly true among patients with co-occurring manic symptoms. Exclusion of individuals begun on antidepressants late in the study (potentially due to overall worse response) resulted in no differences between users and nonusers. We found no differences in treatment effects on mania scales. CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort of outpatients with bipolar disorder, clinically indicated and guideline-based adjunctive antidepressant treatment was not associated with lower depressive symptoms or higher mania symptoms. The treatment-by-indication confounding due to the nonrandomized design of the trials complicates causal interpretations, but no analyses indicated better treatment effects of adjunctive antidepressants.

Combinatorial Pharmacogenomic Testing Improves Outcomes for Older Adults With Depression.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the clinical utility of combinatorial pharmacogenomic testing for informing medication selection among older adults who have experienced antidepressant medication failure for major depressive disorder (MDD). DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of data from a blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing two active treatment arms. SETTING: Psychiatry specialty and primary care clinics across 60 U.S. community and academic sites. PARTICIPANTS: Adults age 65 years or older at baseline (n = 206), diagnosed with MDD and inadequate response to at least one medication on the combinatorial pharmacogenomic test report during the current depressive episode. INTERVENTION: Combinatorial pharmacogenomic testing to inform medication selection (guided-care), compared with treatment as usual (TAU). OUTCOMES: Mean percent symptom improvement, response rate, and remission rateat week 8, measured using the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale; medication switching; and comorbidity moderator analysis. RESULTS: At week 8, symptom improvement was not significantly different for guided-care than for TAU (∆ = 8.1%, t = 1.64, df = 187; p = 0.102); however, guided-care showed significantly improved response (∆ = 13.6%, t = 2.16, df = 187; p = 0.032) and remission (∆ = 12.7%, t = 2.49, df = 189; p = 0.014) relative to TAU. By week 8, more than twice as many patients in guided-care than in TAU were on medications predicted to have no gene-drug interactions (χ2 = 19.3, df = 2; p <0.001). Outcomes in the guided-care arm showed consistent improvement through the end of the open-design 24-week trial, indicating durability of the effect. Differences in outcomes between arms were not significantly impacted by comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Combinatorial pharmacogenomic test-informed medication selection improved outcomes over TAU among older adults with depression.

Improving Cost-effectiveness and Access to Cognitive Behavior Therapy for Depression: Providing Remote-Ready, Computer-Assisted Psychotherapy in Times of Crisis and Beyond.

INTRODUCTION: There is growing evidence that computer-delivered or computer-assisted forms of cognitive behavior therapy (CCBT) are helpful, but cost-effectiveness versus standard therapies is not well established. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a therapist-supported method for CCBT in comparison to standard cognitive behavior therapy (CBT). METHODS: A total of 154 drug-free major depressive disorder outpatients were randomly assigned to either 16 weeks of standard CBT (up to twenty 50-min sessions) or CCBT using the Good Days Ahead program (including up to 5.5 h of therapist contact). Outcomes were assessed at baseline, weeks 8 and 16, and at 3 and 6 months post-treatment. Economic analyses took into account the costs of services received and work/social role impairment. RESULTS: In the context of almost identical efficacy, a form of CCBT that used only about one third the amount of therapist contact as conventional CBT was highly cost-effective compared to conventional therapy and reduced the adjusted cost of treatment by USD 945 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: A method of CCBT that blended internet-delivered modules and abbreviated therapeutic contact reduced the cost of treatment substantially without adversely affecting outcomes. Results suggest that use of this approach can more than double the access to CBT. Because clinician support in CCBT can be provided by telephone, videoconference, and/or email, this highly efficient form of treatment could be a major advance in remote treatment delivery.

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

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

Primary care and mental health providers' perceptions of implementation of pharmacogenetics testing for depression prescribing.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacogenetic testing (PGx) has the potential to improve the quality of psychiatric prescribing by considering patients' genetic profile. However, there is limited scientific evidence supporting its efficacy or guiding its implementation. The Precision Medicine in Mental Health (PRIME) Care study is a pragmatic randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of a specific commercially-available pharmacogenetic (PGx) test to inform antidepressant prescribing at 22 sites across the U.S. Simultaneous implementation science methods using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) are integrated throughout the trial to identify contextual factors likely to be important in future implementation of PGx. The goal of this study was to understand providers' perceptions of PGx for antidepressant prescribing and implications for future implementation. METHODS: Qualitative focus groups (n = 10) were conducted at the beginning of the trial with Primary Care and Mental Health providers (n = 31) from six PRIME Care sites. Focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed and data were analyzed using rapid analytic procedures organized by CFIR domains. RESULTS: Analysis revealed themes in the CFIR Intervention Characteristics domain constructs of Evidence, Relative Advantage, Adaptability, Trialability, Complexity, and Design that are important for understanding providers' perceptions of PGx testing. Results indicate: 1) providers had limited experience and knowledge of PGx testing and its evidence base, particularly for psychiatric medications; 2) providers were hopeful that PGx could increase their precision in depression prescribing and improve patient engagement, but were uncertain about how results would influence treatment; 3) providers were concerned about potential misinterpretation of PGx results and how to incorporate testing into their workflow; 4) primary care providers were less familiar and comfortable with application of PGx testing to antidepressant prescribing than psychiatric providers. CONCLUSIONS: Provider perceptions may serve as facilitators or barriers to implementation of PGx for psychiatric prescribing. Incorporating implementation science into the conduct of the RCT adds value by uncovering factors to be addressed in preparing for future implementation, should the practice prove effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03170362 ; Registered 31 May 2017.