Usefulness of mirtazapine and SSRIs in late-life depression: post hoc analysis of the GUNDAM study.

OBJECTIVE: Mirtazapine and SSRIs are widely prescribed as first-line agents for late-life depression. However, evidence for these drugs is mostly based on non-elderly patients. Therefore, we reanalyzed a randomized controlled trial of mirtazapine versus SSRIs for depression in a sub-population of late-life patients. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted with 141 patients, of whom 41 were elderly, and 100 were non-elderly. This study compared SSRIs and mirtazapine in late-life depression, examined late-onset and early adult-onset separately and compared elderly and non-elderly patients for each drug. Treatment effects and adverse events were assessed using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and the Udvalg for Kliniske Undersøgelser Side Effect Rating Scale, respectively. RESULTS: In late-life depression, mirtazapine showed faster HAM-D total score improvement (3.3 points difference, p = 0.021) and higher improvement in insomnia (1.7 points difference, p = 0.001) and appetite (1.2 points difference, p = 0.020). Similar findings were observed for late-onset depression with the HAM-D total score (4.3 points difference, p = 0.007) and appetite (0.9 points difference, p = 0.004), favoring mirtazapine. Depressive symptoms were generally less improved in late-life depression than in non-late-life depression. Regarding the effect of mirtazapine on appetite, late-life depression showed greater improvement (0.7 points difference, p = 0.008). Nausea and micturition disturbances were more common with SSRIs in late-life depression than in non-late-life depression. In contrast, somnolence was less common in late-life depression with mirtazapine. CONCLUSION: The potential usefulness of mirtazapine in elderly patients was demonstrated. The results also showed differences in the treatment response to SSRIs and mirtazapine between elderly and non-elderly patients.

Effectiveness and Changes in Brain Functions by an Occupational Therapy Program Incorporating Mindfulness in Outpatients with Anxiety and Depression: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: This study examined the efficacy of an 8-week occupational therapy program incorporating mindfulness (MOT) as a form of psychiatric rehabilitation to ameliorate residual social and occupational impairment in patients with anxiety disorders and depression. The objective was to evaluate the effects of MOT on their personal well-being and to assess the impact of MOT on brain function using quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG). METHODS: This study was a randomized, wait-list control trial with assessments performed at baseline, post-intervention (9 weeks), and follow-up (18 weeks) in outpatients with anxiety disorders and depression. The MOT was conducted in small groups, comprising eight weekly 1.5-h sessions. The primary outcome was the mean score change between the pre- and post-interventions with Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery (QPR) scale. Other clinical assessments and qEEG served as secondary and biological outcomes, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 25 patients (mean age: 44.1) were included in the analysis. The MOT group demonstrated a significantly improved QPR compared to the control group after adjusting for baseline covariates (p < 0.01). This improvement was sustained for 9 weeks after the 8-week intervention. In the qEEG analysis, a significant increase in current source density in the ß2 band of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex was observed in the MOT group compared to the control group (p < 0.02). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that MOT improves subjective well-being and potentially, global function. This suggests that MOT may serve as a viable option for those whose symptoms have abated but who still struggle with social and occupational functioning.

Personality as a basis for antidepressant selection for patients with depression: A two-point outcome study at 4 and 8 weeks.

BACKGROUND: The treatment course for depression is multifactorial, and the gold standard method for antidepressant selection remains unclear. Therefore, we focused on patients' personality as a possible indicator of the treatment response to mirtazapine and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and whether it can contribute to antidepressant selection. METHODS: One hundred one patients with major depressive disorder were randomized at baseline to receive either mirtazapine or SSRI treatment. Their personality was measured using the NEO Five-Factor Inventory at baseline, and depressive symptoms were evaluated using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression at baseline and 4 and 8 weeks. Stepwise multivariable logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic analyses were performed to determine the association of personality traits with remission and better antidepressant selection. RESULTS: Neuroticism had the substantial influence on remission at 4 and 8 weeks among the entire sample. The cutoff T-score of neuroticism for predicting remission at 4 weeks was 62.5. The patients with moderate neuroticism (scores below the cutoff) were more likely to experience remission after 4-week mirtazapine treatment (remission rate: 73.7 %) than after SSRI treatment (40.0 %); those with high neuroticism (scores above the cutoff) were more likely to experience remission after 8-week SSRI treatment (74.1 %) than after mirtazapine treatment (35.7 %). LIMITATIONS: The small sample size increased the confidence intervals. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment response of the patients with depression differed according to the type of antidepressants and degree of neuroticism. Measuring personality traits at treatment initiation may help in selecting better antidepressants and predicting the time to remission.

Divergence of dose-response with asenapine: a cluster analysis of randomized, double-blind, and placebo control study.

BACKGROUND: Differences in psychiatric background and dose-response to asenapine in patients with schizophrenia were examined based on efficacy and safety, using data obtained in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. METHODS: Patients with schizophrenia were classified into three clusters by a cluster analysis based on the Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS) subscores at baseline, using the data from a 6-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. PANSS Marder factor scores were calculated for each cluster. The efficacy of 10 or 20 mg/day of asenapine on PANSS score was used as the primary endpoint, with the incidence of adverse events evaluated as the secondary endpoint. RESULTS: A total of 529 asenapine-treated patients were classified into 3 clusters: Cluster-P with the higher scores in positive symptoms, disorganized thoughts, and hostility/excitement, Cluster-N with higher scores in negative symptoms, and Cluster-L with overall lower scores. In Cluster-N and Cluster-L, both 10 and 20 mg/day groups showed significant improvement in PANSS scores, while only the 20 mg/day group showed a significant difference in Cluster-P. Cluster-N and Cluster-L had differences in the incidence of adverse events, but this was not seen in Cluster-P. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and safety of asenapine 10 and 20 mg/day differed between the 3 clusters of patients. This suggests that background information regarding baseline psychiatric symptoms may affect the therapeutic response in patients with schizophrenia.