A survey of five antidepressant properties influencing clinician's treatment choices in MDD.

INTRODUCTION: The goal of the present work was to examine how clinicians' perceptions of the properties of antidepressants may influence their choice of antidepressants when treating major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: 273 of 682 (40%) clinicians attending a psychopharmacology review course responded to a questionnaire designed to explore their practices and perceptions with regards to antidepressant pharmacotherapy. RESULTS: Most clinicians ranked efficacy (57.3%) as the most important factor when selecting antidepressants, followed by safety (23.0%), tolerability (9.4%), rapidity of action (5.2%), and cost (4.9%). However, when presented with hypothetical scenarios in which there was a difference in efficacy between two antidepressant agents, the relative safety, tolerability, and cost of the two agents significantly influenced the likelihood of choosing one antidepressant over another. In fact, clinicians required progressively greater differences in efficacy between two agents in order to select one antidepressant over another given a difference in terms of their safety than tolerability, or their tolerability than cost (p < 0.0001 all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: When selecting an antidepressant, clinicians appear to be most influenced by efficacy, followed by safety. Rapidity of action and cost may be less salient considerations in clinical practice. Further research is necessary to elucidate factors that influence clinicians' choice of antidepressants.

The combination of duloxetine and bupropion for treatment-resistant major depressive disorder.

Our objective was to assess the effectiveness and safety of the combination of duloxetine and bupropion for treatment-resistant major depressive disorder (TRD). A retrospective chart review was conducted to identify patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who had not experienced full remission of symptoms following an adequate trial of either duloxetine (n = 3) or bupropion (n = 7), and who then received the combination of these two antidepressants for TRD. Ten patients [37.2 +/- 11.3 years of age, five women, baseline Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scale score 4.4 +/- 1.1], seven of whom had not remitted following treatment with bupropion (330 +/- 67 mg, 20.5 +/- 12.2 weeks), and three of whom had not remitted following treatment with duloxetine (90 +/- 30 mg, 18 +/- 2 weeks) received at least 4 weeks of combination treatment. The CGI was administered when the combination was first prescribed, and following 8.8 +/- 4.0 (range, 4-16) weeks of treatment. There was a significant decrease in CGI-S (Severity) scores (4.4 +/- 1.1 to 2.1+/-0.9, P <.0001) following combination treatment. Three (30%) patients were remitters at follow-up, and six (60%) were responders who did not achieve full symptom remission. The mean maximum adjunctive duloxetine and bupropion doses were 60.0 +/- 17.3 mg and 175.0 +/- 114.5 mg, respectively. Side effects reported during combination treatment were nausea (n = 2), dry mouth (n = 2), jitteriness/agitation (n = 2), fatigue/drowsiness (n = 2), increased blood pressure (n = 1), increased sweating (n = 1), insomnia (n = 1), pruritus (n = 1), headache (n = 1), sexual dysfunction (n = 1), and weight gain (n = 1). Although preliminary, these results suggest a possible role for the combination of duloxetine and bupropion for TRD.

Adjunctive atomoxetine for residual fatigue in major depressive disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and safety of atomoxetine as an adjunctive medication for residual fatigue in a naturalistic treatment setting. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted to identify major depressive disorder (MDD) patients who had experienced significant symptom improvement (either partial response or remission) following treatment with conventional antidepressants but who were continuing to complain of fatigue. Fourteen such patients (42.2+/-13.4 years of age, five women, baseline HDRS 6.2+/-2.4) with a 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS17)<11 who received adjunctive atomoxetine for fatigue were included in the report. Antidepressants augmented were the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) (n=11; 78.6%), mirtazapine (n=2, 14.3%), and amitriptyline (n=1, 7.1%). RESULTS: Twelve (85.7%) patients (nine remitters, three partial responders) received at least 4 weeks of atomoxetine treatment. The remaining two (partial responders) discontinued atomoxetine within 1-3 days due to increased anxiety. The brief fatigue inventory (BFI) and Clinical Global Impressions Scale (CGI) were administered when atomoxetine was first prescribed, and following 4-10 weeks of treatment (mean of 5.4+/-1.8 weeks). There was a significant decrease in BFI scores (41.9+/-14.9 versus 24.3+/-13.4, p=0.0015), and HDRS-17 scores (6.2+/-2.4 versus 3.5+/-2.8, p=0.0466), but not CGI-S scores (1.3+/-1.4-1.0+/-0.0, p=0.08) following treatment with atomoxetine. 5/12 (41.6%) patients had a 50% or greater decrease in BFI scores. All 12 patients were remitters at follow-up. The mean atomoxetine dose was 42.8+/-10.6 mg. Side effects included insomnia (n=6), increased anxiety (n=3), nausea (n=1) and dry mouth (n=1). CONCLUSIONS: Although preliminary, these results suggest a possible augmentation role for atomoxetine when used in conjunction with conventional antidepressants for residual fatigue in MDD. Prospective as well as controlled studies are necessary to further explore the role of atomoxetine augmentation in MDD.

Personality disorders and the trimensional personality questionnaire factors in major depressive disorder.

We assessed the potential relationship between personality disorder (PD) clusters, as assessed by the SCID-II, and temperamental traits assessed by the Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire (TPQ) among a well-characterized, unmedicated cohort of outpatients with major depressive disorder (MDD). The TPQ and SCID-II were administered to 263 depressed outpatients (mean age = 39.9 +/- 10.5 years; women = 139, 53%; initial 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression = 19.6 +/- 3.4) who currently met criteria for MDD and who were enrolled in an 8-week treatment trial. The multiple linear regression method was used to evaluate the relationship between TPQ factors and personality disorder clusters, controlling for age, gender, and initial 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score as necessary. Among outpatients with MDD, meeting criteria for a Cluster A PD diagnosis was related to high harm avoidance (HA) scores, as well as low reward dependence and novelty seeking (NS) scores. Additionally, high HA scores were associated with meeting criteria for a Cluster C PD diagnosis, while high NS scores were associated with meeting criteria for a Cluster B PD diagnosis. Certain temperament traits, especially HA and NS, appear to be associated with specific patterns of personality clusters among depressed patients.

Aripiprazole augmentation of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for treatment-resistant major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: Due to their favorable side effect profile, atypical antipsychotic agents offer important therapeutic advantages in mood disorders. Aripiprazole, an atypical antipsychotic agent with partial dopaminergic and serotonin 1A receptor agonist activity, may be particularly useful when used in conjunction with standard antidepressants in treatment-resistant depression. The purpose of this study was to test this hypothesis in depressed outpatients who have not experienced significant clinical improvement following an adequate trial of a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI). METHOD: 12 patients (mean +/- SD age = 46.6 +/- 11.3 years, 66.7% female) with major depressive disorder (MDD) diagnosed by use of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-Axis I Disorders, who had failed to experience a clinical response following an adequate trial of an SSRI, were treated with open-label aripiprazole in addition to their SSRI for 8 weeks. Clinical response was defined as a 50% or greater decrease in depressive symptoms during the course of the trial (baseline-endpoint) as measured by the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression total score. Data were collected from August 2003 to July 2004. RESULTS: 9/12 (75.0%) patients completed the trial. Using a completer analysis, 5/9 (55.6%) patients were classified as responders. An intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis resulted in 7 responders (58.3%). The overall proportion of remitters was 3/9 (33.3%) using a completer analysis and 5/12 (41.7%) using the ITT analysis. Aripiprazole administration appeared safe, with no severe adverse events observed in any of the study participants. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest a possible augmentation role for aripiprazole when used in conjunction with SSRIs in SSRI-resistant MDD.

Obesity among outpatients with major depressive disorder.

Studies focusing on the prevalence of obesity in Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), or the impact of excess body fat on the treatment of MDD are lacking. The aim of the present work is to systematically study obesity in MDD outpatients. A total of 369 MDD outpatients enrolled in an 8-wk trial of 20 mg fluoxetine had height and weight measured at baseline. We then examined: (1) the prevalence of being overweight or obese, (2) the relationship between obesity and a number of demographic and clinical variables, and, (3) the relationship between relative body weight and obesity with clinical response. We found that more than 50% of patients were overweight [body mass index (BMI) > or =2 5 kg/m2], while 20% were obese (BMI > or = 30 kg/m2). Obese patients presented with worse somatic well-being scores than non-obese MDD patients, but they did not differ with respect to depression severity, anxiety, somatic complaints, hopelessness or hostility. Greater relative body weight, but not obesity, predicted non-response. In conclusion, greater relative body weight was found to place MDD outpatients at risk for fluoxetine resistance.