Neural predictors of successful brief psychodynamic psychotherapy for persistent depression.

BACKGROUND: Psychodynamic psychotherapy has been used to treat depression for more than a century. However, not all patients respond equally well, and there are few reliable predictors of treatment outcome. METHODS: We used resting (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography ((18)FDG-PET) scans immediately before and after a structured, open trial of brief psychodynamic psychotherapy (n = 16) in conjunction with therapy process ratings and clinical outcome measures to identify neural correlates of treatment response. RESULTS: Pretreatment glucose metabolism within the right posterior insula correlated with depression severity. Reductions in depression scores correlated with a pre- to posttreatment reduction in right insular metabolism, which in turn correlated with higher objective measures of patient insight obtained from videotaped therapy sessions. Pretreatment metabolism in the right precuneus was significantly higher in patients who completed treatment and correlated with psychological mindedness. CONCLUSIONS: Resting brain metabolism predicted both clinical course and relevant psychotherapeutic process during short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy for depression.

A randomized, controlled, pilot study of acamprosate added to escitalopram in adults with major depressive disorder and alcohol use disorder.

We sought to examine the efficacy and safety of acamprosate augmentation of escitalopram in patients with concurrent major depressive disorder (MDD) and alcohol use disorders. Twenty-three adults (43% female; mean ± SD age, 46 ± 14 years) were enrolled and received 12 weeks of treatment with psychosocial support; escitalopram, 10 to 30 mg/d; and either acamprosate, 2000 mg/d (n = 12), or identical placebo (n = 11). Outcomes included change in clinician ratings of depressive symptoms, MDD response and remission rates, changes in frequency and intensity of alcohol use, retention rates, and adverse events. Twelve subjects (acamprosate, n = 7; placebo, n = 5) completed the study. There was significant mean reduction in ratings of depressive symptoms from baseline in both treatment arms (P < 0.05), with no significant difference between the groups. Those in the acamprosate group had a 50% MDD response rate and a 42% remission rate, whereas those in the placebo arm had a 36% response and remission rate (not significant). Those assigned to acamprosate had significant reduction in number of drinks per week and drinks per month during the trial, whereas those assigned to placebo demonstrated no significant change in any alcohol use parameter, but the between-group difference was not significant. There were no significant associations between change in depressive symptoms and change in alcohol use. Attrition rates did not differ significantly between the 2 arms. Acamprosate added to escitalopram in adults with MDD and alcohol use disorders was associated with reduction in the frequency of alcohol use. The present study was not powered to detect superiority versus placebo. Further study in a larger sample is warranted.

A double-blind, placebo-controlled study of aripiprazole adjunctive to antidepressant therapy among depressed outpatients with inadequate response to prior antidepressant therapy (ADAPT-A Study).

BACKGROUND: We assessed the efficacy of low-dose aripiprazole added to antidepressant therapy (ADT) in major depressive disorder (MDD) patients with inadequate response to prior ADT. METHODS: As per the sequential parallel comparison design, 225 MDD subjects were randomized to adjunctive treatment with aripiprazole 2 mg/day or placebo across two 30-day phases, with a 2:3:3 randomization ratio to drug/drug (aripiprazole 2 mg/day in phase 1; 5 mg/day in phase 2), placebo/placebo (placebo in both phases), and placebo/drug (placebo in phase 1; aripiprazole 2 mg/day in phase 2). Eligible subjects were patients whose MDD was independently deemed 'valid' with SAFER criteria. Subjects had been receiving ADT for ≥8 weeks, and had inadequate response to ≥1 and <4 adequate ADTs in the current episode, as defined by the Antidepressant Treatment Response Questionnaire. RESULTS: The pooled, weighted response difference between aripiprazole 2 mg/day and placebo in the two phases was 5.6% (p = 0.18; NS). The aripiprazole 2 mg/day-placebo difference on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale pooled across the two phases was -1.51 (p = 0.065; NS). Other secondary endpoint analyses showed nonsignificant pooled differences favoring aripiprazole over placebo. Of the 225 randomized subjects in phase 1, 2 dropped out in both arms, while in phase 2, of 138 phase 1 placebo nonresponders, 9 dropped out on aripiprazole and 5 on placebo. There were only minimal differences in adverse event rates between treatments, except for constipation, weight gain, and dry mouth, more common on aripiprazole. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides clear support for the tolerability of low-dose aripiprazole as an ADT-augmenting agent, with marginal efficacy.

Efficacy of dose increase among nonresponders to low-dose aripiprazole augmentation in patients with inadequate response to antidepressant treatment: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, efficacy trial.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy of a dose increase of aripiprazole to 5 mg/d in subjects with major depressive disorder (MDD) who did not respond to 4 weeks of treatment with aripiprazole 2 mg/d in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parent study. METHOD: 221 Subjects with Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders-Patient Edition-diagnosed DSM-IV-TR MDD (mean ± SD age, 45 ± 11 years; 64% women) with inadequate antidepressant response were recruited from September 2008-July 2009 and randomized to 60 days of double-blind augmentation with either aripiprazole or placebo in two 30-day phases. The study was performed across 8 academic hospital sites and 14 nonacademic (private clinic) sites throughout the United States. Randomization in a 2:3:3 ratio per sequential parallel comparison design was drug/drug (aripiprazole 2 mg/d in phase 1 and 5 mg/d in phase 2), placebo/placebo (placebo in both phases), and placebo/drug (placebo in phase 1 and aripiprazole 2 mg/d in phase 2). In phase 2, we examined efficacy of an aripiprazole dose increase to 5 mg/d in nonresponders to 2 mg/d by assessing response rates (≥ 50% reduction in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] score [primary outcome measure]) and score changes in MADRS, Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report, 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) and -Improvement (CGI-I) scales, and patient-rated versions of the CGI-I and CGI-S scales. RESULTS: Response rate for aripiprazole 2 mg/d in phase 1 was 18.5% (n/n = 10/54). Among 39 nonresponders who increased their dose to 5 mg/d, response rate was 12.8% (95% CI, 4.30%-27.43%), with significant overall mean ± SD reductions in MADRS scores (-9.46 ± 7.83 [95% CI, -12.00 to -6.92]; P < .0001), Symptoms Questionnaire Distress scores (19.51 ± 17.73 [95% CI, 13.60 to 25.43]; P < .0001), PHQ-9 scores (-7.92 ± 5.92 [95% CI, -9.89 to -5.94]; P < .0001), and CGI-S scores (-0.86 ± 0.86 [95% CI, -1.15 to -0.58]; P < .0001). Differences in efficacy between drug and placebo groups were nonsignificant, however. Aripiprazole and placebo were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Augmentation with aripiprazole 5 mg/d may provide only a modest additional benefit in patients who do not benefit from lower doses. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00683852.

Early improvements in anxiety, depression, and anger/hostility symptoms and response to antidepressant treatment.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to examine whether treatment response to fluoxetine by depressed outpatients was predicted by early improvement on any of 3 subscales (Anxiety, Depression, and Anger/Hostility) of the Symptom Questionnaire (SQ). METHODS: We evaluated 169 depressed outpatients (52.6% female) between ages 18 and 65 (mean age, 40.3 +/- 10.6 years) meeting DSM-IIIR criteria for major depressive disorder (MDD). All patients completed the SQ at baseline (week 0) and at weeks 2, 4, and 8 of treatment with fluoxetine 20 mg/d. We defined treatment response as a > or= 50% reduction in score on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, and early improvement on 3 SQ subscales (Anxiety, Depression, and Anger/Hostility) as a >30% reduction in score by week 2. RESULTS: The percentage of patients with significant early improvement in anger was significantly greater than the percentage of those with early improvements in anxiety or depression. When early improvement on the Anxiety, Depression, and Anger/Hostility subscales of the SQ were assessed independently by logistic regression, all 3 subscales were predictors of response to treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Early improvement in anger, anxiety, and depressive symptoms may predict response to antidepressant treatment among outpatients with MDD.

Anxious depression and early changes in the HAMD-17 anxiety-somatization factor items and antidepressant treatment outcome.

The objective of this study was to assess the relationship between early changes in anxiety/somatization symptoms and treatment outcome among major depressive disorder patients during a 12-week trial of fluoxetine. We also examined the relationship between anxious depression and treatment response. Five hundred and ten major depressive disorder patients received 12 weeks of fluoxetine with flexible dosing [target dosages: 10 mg/day (week 1), 20 mg/day (weeks 2-4), 40 mg/day (weeks 4-8), and 60 mg/day (weeks 5-12)]. We assessed the relationship between early changes in 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD-17)-anxiety/somatization factor items and depressive remission, as well as whether anxious depression at baseline predicted remission at study endpoint. Baseline HAMD-17 scores were considered as covariates and the Bonferroni correction (P < or = 0.008) was used for multiple comparisons. Adjusting for baseline HAMD-17 scores, patients who experienced greater early improvement in somatic symptoms (gastrointestinal) were significantly more likely to attain remission (HAMD-17 <8) at endpoint than those without early improvement (P=0.006). Early changes in the remaining items did not predict remission, nor did anxious depression at baseline. In conclusion, among the anxiety/somatization factor items, only early changes in somatic symptoms (gastrointestinal) predicted remission. Future studies are warranted to further investigate this relationship as well as that between anxious depression and treatment outcome.