Update on the assessment of resistance to antidepressant treatment: Rationale for the Antidepressant Treatment History Form: Short Form-2 (ATHF-SF2).

All definitions of treatment-resistant depression (TRD) require that patients have experienced insufficient benefit from one or more adequate antidepressant trials. Thus, identifying "failed, adequate trials" is key to the assessment of TRD. The Antidepressant Treatment History Form (ATHF) was one of the first and most widely used instruments that provided objective criteria in making these assessments. The original ATHF was updated in 2018 to the ATHF-SF, changing to a checklist format for scoring, and including specific pharmacotherapy, brain stimulation, and psychotherapy interventions as potentially adequate antidepressant treatments. The ATHF-SF2, presented here, is based on the consensus of the ATHF workgroup about the novel interventions introduced since the last revision and which should/should not be considered effective treatments for major depressive episodes. This document describes the rationale for these choices and, for each intervention, the minimal criteria for determining the adequacy of treatment administration. The Supplementary Material that accompanies this article provide the Scoring Checklist, Data Collection Forms (current episode and composite of previous episodes), and Instruction Manual for the ATHF-SF2.

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.

Alternative metrics for characterizing longer-term clinical outcomes in difficult-to-treat depression: II. Sensitivity to treatment effects.

OBJECTIVE: Characteristics of difficult-to-treat depression (DTD), including infrequent symptom remission and poor durability of benefit, compel reconsideration of the outcome metrics historically used to gauge the effectiveness of antidepressant interventions. METHODS: Self-report and clinician assessments of depression symptom severity were obtained regularly over a 2-year period in a difficult-to-treat depression registry sample receiving treatment as usual (TAU), with or without vagus nerve stimulation (VNS). Alternative outcome metrics for characterizing symptom change were compared in effect size and discriminating power in distinguishing the vagus nerve stimulation + treatment as usual and treatment as usual treatment groups. We expected metrics based on remission status to produce weaker between-group separation than those based on the classifications of partial response or response and metrics that integrate information over time to produce greater separation than those based on single endpoint assessment. RESULTS: Metrics based on remission status had smaller effect size and poorer discrimination in separating the treatment groups than metrics based on partial response or response classifications. Metrics that integrated information over the 2-year observation period had stronger performance characteristics than those based on symptom scores at single endpoint assessment. For both the clinician-rated and self-report depression ratings, the metrics with the strongest performance characteristics were the median percentage change in symptom scores over the observation period and the proportion of the observation period in partial response or better. CONCLUSION: In difficult-to-treat depression, integrative symptom severity-based and time-based measures are sensitive and informative outcomes for assessing between-group treatment effects, while metrics based on remission status are not.

Alternative metrics for characterizing longer-term clinical outcomes in difficult-to-treat depression: I. Association with change in quality of life.

BACKGROUND: In difficult-to-treat depression (DTD) the outcome metrics historically used to evaluate treatment effectiveness may be suboptimal. Metrics based on remission status and on single end-point (SEP) assessment may be problematic given infrequent symptom remission, temporal instability, and poor durability of benefit in DTD. METHODS: Self-report and clinician assessment of depression symptom severity were regularly obtained over a 2-year period in a chronic and highly treatment-resistant registry sample (N = 406) receiving treatment as usual, with or without vagus nerve stimulation. Twenty alternative metrics for characterizing symptomatic improvement were evaluated, contrasting SEP metrics with integrative (INT) metrics that aggregated information over time. Metrics were compared in effect size and discriminating power when contrasting groups that did (N = 153) and did not (N = 253) achieve a threshold level of improvement in end-point quality-of-life (QoL) scores, and in their association with continuous QoL scores. RESULTS: Metrics based on remission status had smaller effect size and poorer discrimination of the binary QoL outcome and weaker associations with the continuous end-point QoL scores than metrics based on partial response or response. The metrics with the strongest performance characteristics were the SEP measure of percentage change in symptom severity and the INT metric quantifying the proportion of the observation period in partial response or better. Both metrics contributed independent variance when predicting end-point QoL scores. CONCLUSIONS: Revision is needed in the metrics used to quantify symptomatic change in DTD with consideration of INT time-based measures as primary or secondary outcomes. Metrics based on remission status may not be useful.

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.

The Long and Winding Road of Vagus Nerve Stimulation: Challenges in Developing an Intervention for Difficult-to-Treat Mood Disorders.

PURPOSE: The Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS) Therapy System has been studied for more than 20 years in patients with severe, treatment-resistant, chronic mood disorder, i.e., difficult-to-treat depression (DTD). This review distills some of the implications of this research for future therapeutic trials in this population. METHODS: A narrative review is provided on VNS in DTD. Protocols for a new, large, sham-controlled trial and a global, longitudinal observational study are described. RESULTS: Following encouraging results in open studies, a randomized, masked, sham-controlled trial of VNS for DTD failed to demonstrate an effect on the primary outcome. The negative results may have been partly due to inadequate treatment duration (10 weeks). In long-term observational studies, adjunctive VNS, combined with treatment-as-usual (VNS+TAU), was administered to more than 1100 DTD patients and compared with TAU alone in more than 400 patients. VNS+TAU had superior antidepressant effects, but maximal symptom reduction was often observed after 12 months or longer of stimulation. VNS+TAU had also marked superiority in durability of benefit. Sustained levels of symptom reduction below the traditional cutoff for response (i.e. < 50%) were associated with improved quality of life. LIMITATIONS: Most comparisons of VNS+TAU and TAU were derived from observational, open label studies. CONCLUSION: The history of VNS in DTD has implications for interventional studies in this population, and perhaps other chronic medical disorders. The slow onset of benefit with VNS necessitates considerably longer controlled observation periods to establish efficacy. Durability of benefit should be routinely incorporated in efficacy assessment. New outcome metrics are needed to both categorically identify clinically meaningful benefit and to integrate information on symptom burden over time.

The effects of vagus nerve stimulation on the course and outcomes of patients with bipolar disorder in a treatment-resistant depressive episode: a 5-year prospective registry.

BACKGROUND: To compare illness characteristics, treatment history, response and durability, and suicidality scores over a 5-year period in patients with treatment-resistant bipolar depression participating in a prospective, multicenter, open-label registry and receiving Vagus Nerve Stimulation Therapy (VNS Therapy) plus treatment-as-usual (VNS + TAU) or TAU alone. METHODS: Response was defined as ≥ 50% decrease from baseline Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score at 3, 6, 9, or 12 months post-baseline. Response was retained while MADRS score remained ≥ 40% lower than baseline. Time-to-events was estimated using Kaplan-Meier (KM) analysis and compared using log-rank test. Suicidality was assessed using the MADRS Item 10 score. RESULTS: At baseline (entry into registry), the VNS + TAU group (N = 97) had more episodes of depression, psychiatric hospitalizations, lifetime suicide attempts and higher suicidality score, more severe symptoms (based on MADRS and other scales), and higher rate of prior electroconvulsive therapy than TAU group (N = 59). Lifetime use of medications was similar between the groups (a mean of 9) and was consistent with the severe treatment-resistant nature of their depression. Over 5 years, 63% (61/97) in VNS + TAU had an initial response compared with 39% (23/59) in TAU. The time-to-initial response was significantly quicker for VNS + TAU than for TAU (p < 0.03). Among responders in the first year after implant, the KM estimate of the median time-to-relapse from initial response was 15.2 vs 7.6 months for VNS + TAU compared with TAU (difference was not statistically significant). The mean reduction in suicidality score across the study visits was significantly greater in the VNS + TAU than in the TAU group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The patients who received VNS + TAU included in this analysis had severe bipolar depression that had proved extremely difficult to treat. The TAU comparator group were similar though had slightly less severe illnesses on some measures and had less history of suicide attempts. Treatment with VNS + TAU was associated with a higher likelihood of attaining a response compared to TAU alone. VNS + TAU was also associated with a significantly greater mean reduction in suicidality. LIMITATIONS: In this registry study, participants were not randomized to the study treatment group, VNS Therapy stimulation parameters were not controlled, and there was a high attrition rate over 5 years. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00320372. Registered 3 May 2006, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00320372 (retrospectively registered).

The assessment of resistance to antidepressant treatment: Rationale for the Antidepressant Treatment History Form: Short Form (ATHF-SF).

There is considerable diversity in how treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is defined. However, every definition incorporates the concept that patients with TRD have not benefited sufficiently from one or more adequate trials of antidepressant treatment. This review examines the issues fundamental to the systematic evaluation of antidepressant treatment adequacy and resistance. These issues include the domains of interventions deemed effective in treatment of major depressive episodes (e.g., pharmacotherapy, brain stimulation, and psychotherapy), the subgroups of patients for whom distinct adequacy criteria are needed (e.g., bipolar vs. unipolar depression, psychotic vs. nonpsychotic depression), whether trials should be rated dichotomously as adequate or inadequate or on a potency continuum, whether combination and augmentation strategies require specific consideration, and the criteria used to evaluate the adequacy of treatment delivery (e.g., dose, duration), trial adherence, and clinical outcome. This review also presents the Antidepressant Treatment History Form: Short-Form (ATHF-SF), a completely revised version of an earlier instrument, and details how these fundamental issues were addressed in the ATHF-SF.

Durability of symptomatic responses obtained with adjunctive vagus nerve stimulation in treatment-resistant depression.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the durations of response achieved with adjunctive vagus nerve stimulation (VNS + TAU) vs treatment as usual (TAU) alone in treatment-resistant depression (TRD) over a 5-year period in the TRD registry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 271 participants on TAU and 328 participants on VNS + TAU were analyzed. Response was defined as ≥50% decrease in baseline Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score at postbaseline visit and was considered retained until the decrease was <40%. MADRS was obtained quarterly in year 1 and biannually thereafter. Time-to-events were estimated using Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank test. HR was estimated using Cox proportion hazard model. RESULTS: In the VNS + TAU arm, 62.5% (205/328) of participants had a first response over 5 years compared with 39.9% (108/271) in TAU. The time to first response was significantly shorter for VNS + TAU than for TAU (P<0.01). For responders in the first year, median time to relapse from first response was 10.1 months (Q1=4.2, Q3=31.5) for VNS + TAU vs 7.3 months (Q1=3.1, Q3=17.6) for TAU (P<0.01). HR=0.6 (95% CI: 0.4, 0.9) revealed a significantly lower chance for relapse in VNS + TAU. Probability of retaining first response for a year was 0.39 (0.27, 0.51) for TAU and 0.47 (0.38, 0.56) for VNS + TAU. Timing of the onset of the response did not impact the durability of the response. CONCLUSION: VNS therapy added to TAU in severe TRD leads to rapid onset and higher likelihood of response, and a greater durability of the response as compared to TAU alone.

Long-term surveillance of SUDEP in drug-resistant epilepsy patients treated with VNS therapy.

OBJECTIVE: Limited data are available regarding the evolution over time of the rate of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy patients (SUDEP) in drug-resistant epilepsy. The objective is to analyze a database of 40 443 patients with epilepsy implanted with vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) therapy in the United States (from 1988 to 2012) and assess whether SUDEP rates decrease during the postimplantation follow-up period. METHODS: Patient vital status was ascertained using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Death Index (NDI). An expert panel adjudicated classification of cause of deaths as SUDEP based on NDI data and available narrative descriptions of deaths. We tested the hypothesis that SUDEP rates decrease with time using the Mann-Kendall nonparametric trend test and by comparing SUDEP rates of the first 2 years of follow-up (years 1-2) to longer follow-up (years 3-10). RESULTS: Our cohort included 277 661 person-years of follow-up and 3689 deaths, including 632 SUDEP. Primary analysis demonstrated a significant decrease in age-adjusted SUDEP rate during follow-up (S = -27 P = .008), with rates of 2.47/1000 for years 1-2 and 1.68/1000 for years 3-10 (rate ratio 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-0.87; P = .002). Sensitivity analyses confirm these findings. SIGNIFICANCE: Our data suggest that SUDEP risk significantly decreases during long-term follow-up of patients with refractory epilepsy receiving VNS Therapy. This finding might reflect several factors, including the natural long-term dynamic of SUDEP rate, attrition, and the impact of VNS Therapy. The role of each of these factors cannot be confirmed due to the limitations of the study.

Clinical outcomes, quality of life, and costs associated with implantation of vagus nerve stimulation therapy in pediatric patients with drug-resistant epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: VNS (Vagus Nerve Stimulation Therapy) is approved in the USA to treat refractory epilepsy as adjunctive to antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in patients ≥12 years with complex partial seizures. AIMS: To evaluate clinical outcomes, quality-adjusted life years (QALY), and costs associated with VNS in pediatric patients with drug-resistant epilepsy in a real-world setting. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted using Medicaid data (USA). Patients had ≥1 neurologist visits with epilepsy diagnosis (ICD-9 345.xx, 780.3x), ≥1 procedure claims for VNS implantation, ≥1 AEDs, ≥6-months of Pre- and Post-VNS continuous enrollment. Pre-VNS period was 6-months and Post-VNS period extended from implantation until device removal, death, Medicaid disenrollment, or study end (up to 3 years). Incidence rate ratios (IRR) and costs ($2010) were estimated. QALYs were estimated using number of seizure-related events. RESULTS: For patients 1-11 years old (N = 238), hospitalizations and emergency room visits were reduced Post-VNS vs. Pre-VNS (adjusted IRR = 0.73 [95% CI: 0.61-0.88] and 0.74 [95% CI: 0.65-0.83], respectively). Average total healthcare costs were lower Post-VNS vs. Pre-VNS ($18,437 vs. $18,839 quarterly [adjusted p = 0.052]). For patients 12-17 years old (N = 207), hospitalizations and status epilepticus events were reduced Post-VNS vs. Pre-VNS (adjusted IRR = 0.43 [95% CI: 0.34-0.54] and 0.25 [95% CI: 0.16-0.39], respectively). Average total healthcare costs were lower Post-VNS vs. Pre-VNS period ($14,546 vs. $19,695 quarterly [adjusted p = 0.002]). Lifetime QALY gain after VNS was 5.96 (patients 1-11 years) and 4.82 years (patients 12-17 years). CONCLUSIONS: VNS in pediatric patients is associated with decreased resource use and epilepsy-related events, cost savings, and QALY gain.

Clinical and economic impact of vagus nerve stimulation therapy in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy.

We evaluated long-term medical and economic benefits of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) therapy in drug-resistant epilepsy. A pre-post analysis was conducted using multistate Medicaid data (January 1997-June 2009). One thousand six hundred fifty-five patients with one or more neurologist visits with epilepsy diagnoses (ICD-9 345.xx, 780.3, or 780.39), one or more procedures for vagus nerve stimulator implantation, one or more antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), and 6 or more months of continuous Medicaid enrollment pre- and post-VNS were selected. The pre-VNS period was 6 months. The post-VNS period extended from implantation to device removal, death, Medicaid disenrollment, or study end (up to 3 years). Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and cost differences ($2009) were estimated. Mean age was 29.4 years. Hospitalizations decreased post-VNS compared with pre-VNS (adjusted IRR=0.59, P<0.001). Grand mal status events decreased post-VNS compared with pre-VNS (adjusted IRR=0.79, P<0.001). Average total health care costs were lower post-VNS than pre-VNS ($18,550 vs $19,945 quarterly, P<0.001). VNS is associated with decreased resource utilization and epilepsy-related clinical events and net cost savings after 1.5 years.