Validation of the predictive value of BDNF -87 methylation for antidepressant treatment success in severely depressed patients-a randomized rater-blinded trial.

BACKGROUND: Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) is essential for antidepressant treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). Our repeated studies suggest that DNA methylation of a specific CpG site in the promoter region of exon IV of the BDNF gene (CpG -87) might be predictive of the efficacy of monoaminergic antidepressants such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), and others. This trial aims to evaluate whether knowing the biomarker is non-inferior to treatment-as-usual (TAU) regarding remission rates while exhibiting significantly fewer adverse events (AE). METHODS: The BDNF trial is a prospective, randomized, rater-blinded diagnostic study conducted at five university hospitals in Germany. The study's main hypothesis is that {1} knowing the methylation status of CpG -87 is non-inferior to not knowing it with respect to the remission rate while it significantly reduces the AE rate in patients experiencing at least one AE. The baseline assessment will occur upon hospitalization and a follow-up assessment on day 49 (± 3). A telephone follow-up will be conducted on day 70 (± 3). A total of 256 patients will be recruited, and methylation will be evaluated in all participants. They will be randomly assigned to either the marker or the TAU group. In the marker group, the methylation results will be shared with both the patient and their treating physician. In the TAU group, neither the patients nor their treating physicians will receive the marker status. The primary endpoints include the rate of patients achieving remission on day 49 (± 3), defined as a score of ≤ 10 on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-24), and the occurrence of AE. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial protocol has received approval from the Institutional Review Boards at the five participating universities. This trial holds significance in generating valuable data on a predictive biomarker for antidepressant treatment in patients with MDD. The findings will be shared with study participants, disseminated through professional society meetings, and published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trial Register DRKS00032503. Registered on 17 August 2023.

Prevalence of COVID-19 and Psychotropic Drug Treatment in Psychiatric In-patients in Germany in 2020: Results from a Nationwide Pilot Survey.

INTRODUCTION: In patients with a pre-existing mental disorder, an increased risk for a first manifestation of a psychiatric disorder in COVID-19 patients, a more severe course of COVID-19 and an increased mortality have been described. Conversely, observations of lower COVID-19 incidences in psychiatric in-patients suggested protective effects of psychiatric treatment and/or psychotropic drugs against COVID-19. METHODS: A retrospective multi-center study was conducted in 24 German psychiatric university hospitals. Between April and December 2020 (the first and partly second wave of COVID-19), the effects of COVID-19 were assessed on psychiatric in-patient care, the incidence and course of a SARS-CoV-2 infection, and treatment with psychotropic drugs. RESULTS: Patients (n=36,322) were admitted to the hospitals. Mandatory SARS-CoV-2 tests before/during admission were reported by 23 hospitals (95.8%), while 18 (75%) conducted regular testing during the hospital stay. Two hundred thirty-two (0.6%) patients were tested SARS-CoV-2-positive. Thirty-seven (16%) patients were receiving medical treatment for COVID-19 at the psychiatric hospital, ten (4.3%) were transferred to an intermediate/intensive care unit, and three (1.3%) died. The most common prescription for SARS-CoV-2-positive patients was for second-generation antipsychotics (n=79, 28.2%) and antidepressants (SSRIs (n=38, 13.5%), mirtazapine (n=36, 12.9%) and SNRIs (n=29, 10.4%)). DISCUSSION: Contrary to previous studies, our results showed a low number of infections and mortality in SARS-CoV-2-positive psychiatric patients. Several preventive measures seem effective to protect this vulnerable group. Our observations are compatible with the hypothesis of a protective effect of psychotropic drugs against COVID-19 as the overall mortality and need for specific medical treatment was low.

Impact of COVID-19 on the treatment of depressive patients in Germany-a gap in care for the mentally ill?

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic led to a higher incidence of depression and a worsening of psychiatric conditions, while pre-existing constraints of the healthcare system and safety regulations limited psychiatric care. Aims: We investigated the impact of the pandemic on the clinical care of patients with a single episode (SE-MDD) or major depressive disorder (MDD) in Germany. Methods: Nationwide inpatient data were extracted from the German Institute for Hospital Remuneration System for 2020 and 2021 (depression data) and the Robert Koch Institute (COVID-19 incidence). Changes in inpatients were tested with linear regression models. Local cases of depression in our department compared to 2019 were explored with one-way ANOVA and Dunnett's test. Results: Across Germany, the inpatient numbers with both SE-MDD and MDD declined by more than 50% during three out of four COVID-19 waves. Higher COVID-19 incidence correlated with decreased inpatient numbers. In our department, fewer MDD inpatients were treated in 2020 (adj. p < 0.001) and 2021 (adj. p < 0.001) compared to 2019, while the number of SE-MDD inpatients remained stable. During this period fewer elective and more emergency inpatients were admitted. In parallel, MDD outpatient admissions increased in 2021 compared to 2019 (adj. p = 0.002) and 2020 (adj. p = 0.003). Conclusion: During high COVID-19 infection rates, MDD patients received less inpatient care, which might cause poor outcomes in the near future. These data highlight the necessity for improved infrastructure in the in- and outpatient domains to facilitate accessibility to adequate care.

Patient characteristics, validity of clinical diagnoses and Outcomes Associated with Suicidality in Inpatients with Symptoms of Depression (OASIS-D): design, procedures and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Suicidality, ranging from passive suicidal thoughts to suicide attempt, is common in major depressive disorder (MDD). However, relatively little is known about patient, illness and treatment characteristics in those with co-occurring MDD and suicidality, including the timing of and factors associated with the offset, continuation or reemergence of suicidality. Here, we present the background, rationale, design and hypotheses of the Patient Characteristics, Validity of Clinical Diagnoses and Outcomes Associated with Suicidality in Inpatients with Symptoms of Depression (OASIS-D) study, an investigator-initiated, observational study, funded by Janssen-Cilag GmbH. METHODS/RESULTS: OASIS-D is an eight-site, six-month, cohort study of patients aged 18-75 hospitalized with MDD. Divided into three sub-studies and patient populations (PPs), OASIS-D will (i) systematically characterize approximately 4500 consecutively hospitalized patients with any form of unipolar depressive episode (PP1), (ii) evaluate the validity of the clinical diagnosis of moderate or severe unipolar depressive episode with the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.) and present suicidality (at least passive suicidal thoughts) present ≥ 48 h after admission with the Sheehan-Suicide Tracking Scale (S-STS), assessing also predictors of the diagnostic concordance/discordance of MDD in around 500 inpatients (PP2), and (iii) characterize and prospectively follow for 6 months 315 inpatients with a research-verified moderate or severe unipolar depressive episode and at least passive suicidal thoughts ≥ 48 h after admission, evaluating treatment and illness/response patterns at baseline, hospital discharge, 3 and 6 months. Exploratory objectives will describe the association between the number of days with suicidality and utilization of outpatient and inpatient care services, and structured assessments of factors influencing the risk of self-injurious behavior without suicidal intent, and of continuous, intermittent or remitted suicidality during the 6-month observation period. CONCLUSION: Despite their frequency and clinical relevance, relatively little is known about patient and treatment characteristics of individuals with MDD and suicidality, including factors moderating and mediating the outcome of both MDD and suicidality. Results of the OASIS-D study are hoped to improve the understanding of the frequency, correlates and 6-month naturalistic treatment and outcome trajectories of different levels of suicidality in hospitalized adults with MDD and suicidality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04404309 [ClinicalTrials.gov].

Changes in the pattern of suicides and suicide attempt admissions in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The consequences of the current COVID-19 pandemic for mental health remain unclear, especially regarding the effects on suicidal behaviors. To assess changes in the pattern of suicide attempt (SA) admissions and completed suicides (CS) in association with the COVID-19 pandemic. As part of a longitudinal study, SA admissions and CS are systematically documented and analyzed in all psychiatric hospitals in Frankfurt/Main (765.000 inhabitants). Number, sociodemographic factors, diagnoses and methods of SA and CS were compared between the periods of March-December 2019 and March-December 2020. The number of CS did not change, while the number of SA significantly decreased. Age, sex, occupational status, and psychiatric diagnoses did not change in SA, whereas the percentage of patients living alone while attempting suicide increased. The rate and number of intoxications as a SA method increased and more people attempted suicide in their own home, which was not observed in CS. Such a shift from public places to home is supported by the weekday of SA, as the rate of SA on weekends was significantly lower during the pandemic, likely because of lockdown measures. Only admissions to psychiatric hospitals were recorded, but not to other institutions. As it seems unlikely that the number of SA decreased while the number of CS remained unchanged, it is conceivable that the number of unreported SA cases increased during the pandemic. Our data suggest that a higher number of SA remained unnoticed during the pandemic because of their location and the use of methods associated with lower lethality.

The Combination of Lithium and ACE Inhibitors: Hazardous, Critical, Possible?

Lithium is a well established therapeutic agent in the treatment of uni- and bipolar affective disorders. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are the most frequently used class of drugs in the treatment of cardiovascular diseases. Combination therapy with both may be considered in clinical practice on occurrence of arterial hypertension after years of successful lithium therapy, yet an increased risk of lithium intoxication in combination with ACE inhibitors has been described and thus the combination has been warned against. We describe three cases in which enalapril, lisinopril or ramipril was combined with lithium. Either additional co-medication with hydrochlorothiazide or dehydration rather than co-medication with ACE inhibitors could be identified as necessary factors for lithium intoxication. These cases suggest that a combination of lithium with ACE inhibitors is possible when sufficient hydration is ensured and a combination with hydrochlorothiazide is avoided. Lithium concentration should be controlled on a regular level.