Clinical characteristics and treatment exposure of patients with marked treatment-resistant unipolar major depressive disorder: A RECOVER trial report.

BACKGROUND: RECOVER is a randomized sham-controlled trial of vagus nerve stimulation and the largest such trial conducted with a psychiatric neuromodulation intervention. OBJECTIVE: To describe pre-implantation baseline clinical characteristics and treatment history of patients with unipolar, major depressive disorder (MDD), overall and as a function of exposure to interventional psychiatric treatments (INTs), including electroconvulsive therapy, transcranial magnetic stimulation, and esketamine. METHODS: Medical, psychiatric, and treatment records were reviewed by study investigators and an independent Study Eligibility Committee prior to study qualification. Clinical characteristics and treatment history (using Antidepressant Treatment History [Short] Form) were compared in those qualified (N = 493) versus not qualified (N = 228) for RECOVER, and among the qualified group as a function of exposure to INTs during the current major depressive episode (MDE). RESULTS: Unipolar MDD patients who qualified for RECOVER had marked TRD (median of 11.0 lifetime failed antidepressant treatments), severe disability (median WHODAS score of 50.0), and high rate of baseline suicidality (77% suicidal ideation, 40% previous suicide attempts). Overall, 71% had received at least one INT. Compared to the no INT group, INT recipients were younger and more severely depressed (QIDS-C, QIDS-SR), had greater suicidal ideation, earlier diagnosis of MDD, and failed more antidepressant medication trials. CONCLUSIONS: RECOVER-qualified unipolar patients had marked TRD and marked treatment resistance with most failing one or more prior INTs. Treatment with ≥1 INTs in the current MDE was associated with earlier age of MDD onset, more severe clinical presentation, and greater treatment resistance relative to patients without a history of INT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03887715.

A new machine learning-derived screening measure for differentiating bipolar from unipolar mood disorders.

BACKGROUND: While there are several accepted screening measures for identifying those with a bipolar disorder, variations in overall classification rates argue for the pursuit of a more discriminating measure. Extant measures, as well as the DSM-5, rate each diagnostic criterion as having equivalent weighting values; an approach which may compromise diagnostic assignment if symptoms vary considerably in their diagnostic sensitivity. We therefore sought to develop a new measure and examine whether a weighted rating scale was superior to one assigning equivalent weightings to each item. METHODS: An international sample of 165 bipolar patients and a comparison sample of 29 unipolar patients completed a measure assessing 96 putative manic/hypomanic symptoms. A previous machine learning analysis had identified the twenty most discriminating items. In this study, analysis was undertaken involving only the ten most discriminating items. RESULTS: Whether items were scored as each having equivalent value or as weighted by their machine learning-generated values, classificatory accuracy was extremely high (in the order of 96%). Analyses also identified optimal cut-off scores. High classificatory accuracy was also obtained when scores for separate bipolar I and bipolar II groups were compared with scores from the unipolar group. LIMITATIONS: The sample consisted of comparatively few unipolar patients. CONCLUSIONS: The ten-item set allows a new measure for researchers to evaluate, while the items should assist clinician assessment as to whether a patient has a bipolar or unipolar mood disorder.

Categorical differentiation of the unipolar and bipolar disorders.

There has been a longstanding debate as to whether the bipolar disorders differ categorically or dimensionally, with some dimensional or spectrum models including unipolar depressive disorders within a bipolar spectrum model. We analysed manic/hypomanic symptom data in samples of clinically diagnosed bipolar I, bipolar II and unipolar patients, employing latent class analyses to determine if separate classes could be identified. Mixture analyses were also undertaken to determine if a unimodal, bimodal or a trimodal pattern was present. For both a refined 15-item set and an extended 30-item set of manic/hypomanic symptoms, our latent class analyses favoured three-class solutions, while mixture analyses identified trimodal distributions of scores. Findings argue for a categorical distinction between unipolar and bipolar disorders, as well as between bipolar I and bipolar II disorders. Future research should aim to consolidate these results in larger samples, particularly given that the size of the unipolar group in this study was a salient limitation.

Differentiating mania/hypomania from happiness using a machine learning analytic approach.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to improve the accuracy of bipolar disorder diagnoses by identifying symptoms that help to distinguish mania/hypomania in bipolar disorders from general 'happiness' in those with unipolar depression. METHODS: An international sample of 165 bipolar and 29 unipolar depression patients (as diagnosed by their clinician) were recruited. All participants were required to rate a set of 96 symptoms with regards to whether they typified their experiences of manic/hypomanic states (for bipolar patients) or when they were 'happy' (unipolar patients). A machine learning paradigm (prediction rule ensembles; PREs) was used to derive rule ensembles that identified which of the 94 non-psychotic symptoms and their combinations best predicted clinically-allocated diagnoses. RESULTS: The PREs were highly accurate at predicting clinician bipolar and unipolar diagnoses (92% and 91% respectively). A total of 20 items were identified from the analyses, which were all highly discriminating across the two conditions. When compared to a classificatory approach insensitive to the weightings of the items, the ensembles were of comparable accuracy in their discriminatory capacity despite the unbalanced sample. This illustrates the potential for PREs to supersede traditional classificatory approaches. LIMITATIONS: There were considerably less unipolar than bipolar patients in the sample, which limited the overall accuracy of the PREs. CONCLUSIONS: The consideration of symptoms outlined in this study should assist clinicians in distinguishing between bipolar and unipolar disorders. Future research will seek to further refine and validate these symptoms in a larger and more balanced sample.

The bipolar disorders: A case for their categorically distinct status based on symptom profiles.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether the bipolar disorders (i.e. BP-I/BP-II) differ dimensionally or categorically. This study sought to clarify this issue. METHODS: We recruited 165 patients, of which 69 and 96 had clinician-assigned diagnoses of BP-I and BP-II respectively. Their psychiatrists completed a data sheet seeking information on clinical variables about each patient, while the patients completed a different data sheet and scored a questionnaire assessing the prevalence and severity of 96 candidate manic/hypomanic symptoms. RESULTS: We conducted a series of analyses examining a set (and two sub-sets) of fifteen symptoms that were significantly more likely to be reported by the clinically diagnosed BP-I patients. Latent class analyses favoured two-class solutions, while mixture analyses demonstrated bimodality, thus arguing for a BP-I/BP-II categorical distinction. Statistically defined BP-I class members were more likely when manic to have experienced psychotic features and over-valued ideas. They were also more likely to have been hospitalised, and to have been younger when they received their bipolar diagnosis and first experienced a depressive or manic episode. LIMITATIONS: The lack of agreement between some patients and managing clinicians in judging the presence of psychotic features could have compromised some analyses. It is also unclear whether some symptoms (e.g. grandiosity, noting mystical events) were capturing formal psychotic features or not. CONCLUSIONS: Findings replicate our earlier study in providing evidence to support the modelling of BP-I and BP-II as categorically discrete conditions. This should advance research into aetiological factors and determining optimal (presumably differing) treatments for the two conditions.

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in the Treatment of Bipolar Depression: Experience From a Clinical Setting.

BACKGROUND: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a noninvasive Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved treatment for unipolar treatment-resistant depression (TRD). rTMS has been utilized clinically to treat bipolar TRD; however, there remains a lack of evidence and support for effectively utilizing this intervention for bipolar TRD. We retrospectively analyzed data from a group of patients who were treated with rTMS for unipolar or bipolar TRD and describe a case example to further delineate management techniques for employing rTMS in the treatment of bipolar TRD. METHODS: Records of 71 patients treated with rTMS for unipolar (n=54) or bipolar (n=17) TRD between 2008 and 2017 were reviewed. The primary outcome of depression severity, the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, was completed at baseline and after every 5 sessions throughout the course of 30 treatments. Secondary outcomes involved a comparison of outcomes and clinical characteristics within and between the bipolar and unipolar TRD groups. RESULTS: In the total sample, patients' depression improved significantly over the course of treatment. Patients with bipolar TRD showed greater response and remission rates over the course of treatment compared with patients with unipolar TRD, but this difference was not statistically significant. Both groups showed a similar pattern of depression response over treatment time. No manic or hypomanic episodes occurred during any patient's course of rTMS treatment. A case example is provided discussing the timing of rTMS in a patient with bipolar depression to decrease the likelihood of treatment-induced hypomania. LIMITATIONS: Limitations included the small overall sample size, the smaller size of the patient group with bipolar TRD compared with the group with unipolar TRD, and the naturalistic setting of this study. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that rTMS may be equally effective and safe for patients with both unipolar and bipolar depression. Patients with bipolar TRD showed a similar response profile over treatment time compared with patients with unipolar TRD.

The symptom-specific efficacy of antidepressant medication vs. cognitive behavioral therapy in the treatment of depression: results from an individual patient data meta-analysis.

A recent individual patient data meta-analysis showed that antidepressant medication is slightly more efficacious than cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in reducing overall depression severity in patients with a DSM-defined depressive disorder. We used an update of that dataset, based on seventeen randomized clinical trials, to examine the comparative efficacy of antidepressant medication vs. CBT in more detail by focusing on individual depressive symptoms as assessed with the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. Five symptoms (i.e., "depressed mood" , "feelings of guilt" , "suicidal thoughts" , "psychic anxiety" and "general somatic symptoms") showed larger improvements in the medication compared to the CBT condition (effect sizes ranging from .13 to .16), whereas no differences were found for the twelve other symptoms. In addition, network estimation techniques revealed that all effects, except that on "depressed mood" , were direct and could not be explained by any of the other direct or indirect treatment effects. Exploratory analyses showed that information about the symptom-specific efficacy could help in identifying those patients who, based on their pre-treatment symptomatology, are likely to benefit more from antidepressant medication than from CBT (effect size of .30) versus those for whom both treatments are likely to be equally efficacious. Overall, our symptom-oriented approach results in a more thorough evaluation of the efficacy of antidepressant medication over CBT and shows potential in "precision psychiatry" .

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.

rTMS effects in patients with co-morbid somatic pain and depressive mood disorders.

BACKGROUND: Pain is a common co-morbidity among clinically depressed individuals. We investigated a group of patients who were treated with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treatment resistant depression (TRD) and who were assessed for severity of both depression and pain at baseline and throughout treatment. METHODS: Records of 71 patients treated for TRD with rTMS from 2008 to 2017 were reviewed. Primary outcome measures including depression severity using the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS) and a 0-10 numeric pain rating scale were assessed at baseline and after every 5 sessions throughout the course of 30 treatments. RESULTS: In the total sample, pain improved significantly over the course of treatment. Changes within subjects in QIDS were associated with the changes in pain (p = 0.011). TRD patients with higher pain scores at baseline tended to be older, experienced a longer duration of illness, and showed significant differences in QIDS over treatment time as compared with the low baseline pain group. Patients who had failed a serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) (venlafaxine or duloxetine) trial in the past had less pain at baseline and showed a group difference in pain scores at all time points, which was significant at treatments 20, 25 and 30, compared to patient groups who had never taken these medications or were currently taking these medications. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include the potential impact of the discomfort over the treatment site on the scalp, as it is unclear whether patients' assessment of pain included this side effect, and the lack of a control group due to the naturalistic design of this study. CONCLUSION: Our data show that pain and depression respond well to rTMS in a TRD population. Pain and depression severity in rTMS patients may be associated over the course of rTMS treatment time-points in individuals with higher levels of baseline pain.

Can Medication Free, Treatment-Resistant, Depressed Patients Who Initially Respond to TMS Be Maintained Off Medications? A Prospective, 12-Month Multisite Randomized Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is efficacious for acute treatment of resistant major depressive disorder (MDD), but there is little information on maintenance TMS after acute response. OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS: This pilot feasibility study investigated 12-month outcomes comparing two maintenance TMS approaches--a scheduled, single TMS session delivered monthly (SCH) vs. observation only (OBS). METHODS: Antidepressant-free patients with unipolar, non-psychotic, treatment-resistant MDD participated in a randomized, open-label, multisite trial. Patients meeting protocol-defined criteria for improvement after six weeks of acute TMS were randomized to SCH or OBS regimens. TMS reintroduction was available for symptomatic worsening; all patients remained antidepressant-free during the trial. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients enrolled in the acute phase, and 49 (73%) met randomization criteria. Groups were matched, although more patients in the SCH group had failed ≥ 2 antidepressants (p = .035). There were no significant group differences on any outcome measure. SCH patients had nonsignificantly longer time to first TMS reintroduction, 91 ± 66 days, vs. OBS, 77 ± 52 days; OBS patients were nonsignificantly more likely to need reintroduction (odds ratio = 1.21, 95% CI .38-3.89). Reintroduction lasted 14.3 ± 17.8 days (SCH) and 16.9 ± 18.9 days (OBS); 14/18 (78%) SCH and 17/27 (63%) OBS responded to reintroduction. Sixteen patients (32.7%) completed all 53 weeks of the study. CONCLUSIONS: Maintaining treatment-resistant depressed patients off medications with periodic TMS appears feasible in some cases. There was no statistical advantage of SCH vs. OBS, although SCH was associated with a nonsignificantly longer time to relapse. Those who initially respond to TMS have a strong chance of re-responding if relapse occurs.

A multisite, naturalistic, observational study of transcranial magnetic stimulation for patients with pharmacoresistant major depressive disorder: durability of benefit over a 1-year follow-up period.

OBJECTIVE: Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is an effective and safe acute treatment for patients not benefiting from antidepressant pharmacotherapy. Few studies have examined its longer term durability. This study assessed the long-term effectiveness of TMS in naturalistic clinical practice settings following acute treatment. METHOD: Adult patients with a primary diagnosis of unipolar, nonpsychotic major depressive disorder (DSM-IV clinical criteria), who did not benefit from antidepressant medication, received TMS treatment in 42 clinical practices. Two hundred fifty-seven patients completed a course of acute TMS treatment and consented to follow-up over 52 weeks. Assessments were obtained at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. The study was conducted between March 2010 and August 2012. RESULTS: Compared with pre-TMS baseline, there was a statistically significant reduction in mean total scores on the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale (primary outcome), 9-Item Patient Health Questionnaire, and Inventory of Depressive Symptoms-Self Report (IDS-SR) at the end of acute treatment (all P < .0001), which was sustained throughout follow-up (all P < .0001). The proportion of patients who achieved remission at the conclusion of acute treatment remained similar at conclusion of the long-term follow-up. Among 120 patients who met IDS-SR response or remission criteria at the end of acute treatment, 75 (62.5%) continued to meet response criteria throughout long-term follow-up. After the first month, when the majority of acute TMS tapering was completed, 93 patients (36.2%) received reintroduction of TMS. In this group, the mean (SD) number of TMS treatment days was 16.2 (21.1). CONCLUSIONS: TMS demonstrates a statistically and clinically meaningful durability of acute benefit over 12 months of follow-up. This was observed under a pragmatic regimen of continuation antidepressant medication and access to TMS retreatment for symptom recurrence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01114477.

No change in neuropsychological functioning after receiving repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment for major depression.

Early studies of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) have shown no adverse effects on neuropsychological function. However, further research using higher TMS intensities as well as a greater number of TMS pulses and with larger sample sizes is needed. We studied 68 patients with major depressive disorder who were randomized to receive either 15 sessions of sham or real TMS at 110% of the estimated prefrontal cortex threshold to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Each session consisted of 32 5-second trains of 10-Hz repetitive TMS at 110% adjusted motor threshold. A total of 24,000 pulses were given. Neuropsychological function was assessed before and immediately after TMS treatment with a battery of 8 tests. Using a higher TMS intensity as well as a greater number of pulses and having a larger sample size compared with most previous studies, this study found no negative neuropsychological effects of TMS. Changes in neuropsychological function were unrelated to changes in depression.