Hippocampal dysfunction in Gulf War veterans: investigation with ASL perfusion MR imaging and physostigmine challenge.

PURPOSE: To determine, with arterial spin labeling (ASL) perfusion magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and physostigmine challenge, if abnormal hippocampal blood flow in ill Gulf War veterans persists 11 years after initial testing with single photon emission computed tomography and nearly 20 years after the 1991 Gulf War. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The local institutional review board approved this HIPAA-compliant study. Veterans were screened for contraindications and gave written informed consent before the study. In a semiblinded retrospective protocol, veterans in three Gulf War illness groups-syndrome 1 (impaired cognition), syndrome 2 (confusion-ataxia), and syndrome 3 (central neuropathic pain)-and a control group received intravenous infusions of saline in an initial session and physostigmine in a second session, 48 hours later. Each infusion was followed by measurement of hippocampal regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) with pulsed ASL. A mixed-effects linear model adjusted for age was used to test for differences in rCBF after the cholinergic challenge across the four groups. RESULTS: Physostigmine significantly decreased hippocampal rCBF in control subjects (P < .0005) and veterans with syndrome 1 (P < .05) but significantly increased hippocampal rCBF in veterans with syndrome 2 (P < .005) and veterans with syndrome 3 (P < .002). The abnormal increase in rCBF was found to have progressed to the left hippocampus of the veterans with syndrome 2 and to both hippocampi of the veterans with syndrome 3. CONCLUSION: Chronic hippocampal perfusion dysfunction persists or worsens in veterans with certain Gulf War syndromes. ASL MR imaging examination of hippocampal rCBF in a cholinergic challenge experiment may be useful as a diagnostic test for this condition.

Bupropion-SR, sertraline, or venlafaxine-XR after failure of SSRIs for depression.

BACKGROUND: After unsuccessful treatment for depression with a selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), it is not known whether switching to one antidepressant is more effective than switching to another. METHODS: We randomly assigned 727 adult outpatients with a nonpsychotic major depressive disorder who had no remission of symptoms or could not tolerate the SSRI citalopram to receive one of the following drugs for up to 14 weeks: sustained-release bupropion (239 patients) at a maximal daily dose of 400 mg, sertraline (238 patients) at a maximal daily dose of 200 mg, or extended-release venlafaxine (250 patients) at a maximal daily dose of 375 mg. The study was conducted in 18 primary and 23 psychiatric care settings. The primary outcome was symptom remission, defined by a total score of 7 or less on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD-17) at the end of the study. Scores on the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology - Self Report (QIDS-SR-16), obtained at treatment visits, determined secondary outcomes, including remission (a score of 5 or less at exit) and response (a reduction of 50 percent or more on baseline scores). RESULTS: Remission rates as assessed by the HRSD-17 and the QIDS-SR-16, respectively, were 21.3 percent and 25.5 percent for sustained-release bupropion, 17.6 percent and 26.6 percent for sertraline, and 24.8 percent and 25.0 percent for extended-release venlafaxine. QIDS-SR-16 response rates were 26.1 percent for sustained-release bupropion, 26.7 percent for sertraline, and 28.2 percent for extended-release venlafaxine. These treatments did not differ significantly with respect to outcomes, tolerability, or adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: After unsuccessful treatment with an SSRI, approximately one in four patients had a remission of symptoms after switching to another antidepressant. Any one of the medications in the study provided a reasonable second-step choice for patients with depression. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00021528.).

Medication augmentation after the failure of SSRIs for depression.

BACKGROUND: Although clinicians frequently add a second medication to an initial, ineffective antidepressant drug, no randomized controlled trial has compared the efficacy of this approach. METHODS: We randomly assigned 565 adult outpatients who had nonpsychotic major depressive disorder without remission despite a mean of 11.9 weeks of citalopram therapy (mean final dose, 55 mg per day) to receive sustained-release bupropion (at a dose of up to 400 mg per day) as augmentation and 286 to receive buspirone (at a dose of up to 60 mg per day) as augmentation. The primary outcome of remission of symptoms was defined as a score of 7 or less on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD-17) at the end of this study; scores were obtained over the telephone by raters blinded to treatment assignment. The 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology--Self-Report (QIDS-SR-16) was used to determine the secondary outcomes of remission (defined as a score of less than 6 at the end of this study) and response (a reduction in baseline scores of 50 percent or more). RESULTS: The sustained-release bupropion group and the buspirone group had similar rates of HRSD-17 remission (29.7 percent and 30.1 percent, respectively), QIDS-SR-16 remission (39.0 percent and 32.9 percent), and QIDS-SR-16 response (31.8 percent and 26.9 percent). Sustained-release bupropion, however, was associated with a greater reduction (from baseline to the end of this study) in QIDS-SR-16 scores than was buspirone (25.3 percent vs. 17.1 percent, P<0.04), a lower QIDS-SR-16 score at the end of this study (8.0 vs. 9.1, P<0.02), and a lower dropout rate due to intolerance (12.5 percent vs. 20.6 percent, P<0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Augmentation of citalopram with either sustained-release bupropion or buspirone appears to be useful in actual clinical settings. Augmentation with sustained-release bupropion does have certain advantages, including a greater reduction in the number and severity of symptoms and fewer side effects and adverse events. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00021528.).

Difference in treatment outcome in outpatients with anxious versus nonanxious depression: a STAR*D report.

OBJECTIVE: About half of outpatients with major depressive disorder also have clinically meaningful levels of anxiety. The authors conducted a secondary data analysis to compare antidepressant treatment outcomes for patients with anxious and nonanxious major depression in Levels 1 and 2 of the STAR*D study. METHOD: A total of 2,876 adult outpatients with major depressive disorder, enrolled from 18 primary and 23 psychiatric care sites, received citalopram in Level 1 of STAR*D. In Level 2, a total of 1,292 patients who did not remit with or tolerate citalopram were randomly assigned either to switch to sustained-release bupropion (N=239), sertraline (N=238), or extended-release venlafaxine (N=250) or to continue taking citalopram and receive augmentation with sustained-release bupropion (N=279) or buspirone (N=286). Treatment could last up to 14 weeks in each level. Patients were designated as having anxious depression if their anxiety/somatization factor score from the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) was 7 or higher at baseline. Rates of remission and response as well as times to remission and response were compared between patients with anxious depression and those with nonanxious depression. RESULTS: In Level 1 of STAR*D, 53.2% of patients had anxious depression. Remission was significantly less likely and took longer to occur in these patients than in those with nonanxious depression. Ratings of side effect frequency, intensity, and burden, as well as the number of serious adverse events, were significantly greater in the anxious depression group. Similarly, in Level 2, patients with anxious depression fared significantly worse in both the switching and augmentation options. CONCLUSIONS: Anxious depression is associated with poorer acute outcomes than nonanxious depression following antidepressant treatment.

Family history of completed suicide and characteristics of major depressive disorder: a STAR*D (sequenced treatment alternatives to relieve depression) study.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians routinely ask patients with non-psychotic major depressive disorder (MDD) about their family history of suicide. It is unknown, however, whether patients with a family member who committed suicide differ from those without such a history. METHODS: Patients were recruited for the STAR*D multicenter trial. At baseline, patients were asked to report first-degree relatives who had died from suicide. Differences in demographic and clinical features for patients with and without a family history of suicide were assessed. RESULTS: Patients with a family history of suicide (n=142/4001; 3.5%) were more likely to have a family history of MDD, bipolar disorder, or any mood disorder, and familial substance abuse disorder, but not suicidal thoughts as compared to those without such a history. The group with familial suicide had a more pessimistic view of the future and an earlier age of onset of MDD. No other meaningful differences were found in depressive symptoms, severity, recurrence, depressive subtype, or daily function. CONCLUSIONS: A history of completed suicide in a family member was associated with minimal clinical differences in the cross-sectional presentation of outpatients with MDD. Limitations of the study include lack of information about family members who had attempted suicide and the age of the probands when their family member died. STAR*D assessments were limited to those needed to ascertain diagnosis and treatment response and did not include a broader range of psychological measures.

Cognitive therapy versus medication in augmentation and switch strategies as second-step treatments: a STAR*D report.

OBJECTIVE: The authors compared the effectiveness of cognitive therapy and pharmacotherapy as second-step strategies for outpatients with major depressive disorder who had received inadequate benefit from an initial trial of citalopram. Cognitive therapy was compared with medication augmentation and switch strategies. METHOD: An equipoise-stratified randomization strategy was used to assign participants to either augmentation of citalopram with cognitive therapy (N=65) or medication (N=117; either sustained-release bupropion [N=56] or buspirone [N=61]) or switch to cognitive therapy (N=36) or another antidepressant (N=86; sertraline [N=27], sustained-release bupropion [N=28], or extended-release venlafaxine [N=31]). Treatment outcomes and the frequency of adverse events were compared. RESULTS: Less than one-third of participants consented to randomization strata that permitted comparison of cognitive therapy and pharmacotherapy. Among participants who were assigned to second-step treatment, those who received cognitive therapy (either alone or in combination with citalopram) had similar response and remission rates to those assigned to medication strategies. For those who continued on citalopram, medication augmentation resulted in significantly more rapid remission than augmentation with cognitive therapy. Among those who discontinued citalopram, there were no significant differences in outcome, although those who switched to a different antidepressant reported significantly more side effects than those who received cognitive therapy alone. CONCLUSIONS: After an unsatisfactory response to citalopram, patients who consented to random assignment to either cognitive therapy or alternative pharmacologic strategies had generally comparable outcomes. Pharmacologic augmentation was more rapidly effective than cognitive therapy augmentation of citalopram, whereas switching to cognitive therapy was better tolerated than switching to a different antidepressant.

Acceptability of second-step treatments to depressed outpatients: a STAR*D report.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment of major depressive disorder typically entails implementing treatments in a stepwise fashion until a satisfactory outcome is achieved. This study sought to identify factors that affect patients' willingness to accept different second-step treatment approaches. METHOD: Participants in the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) trial who had unsatisfactory outcomes after initial treatment with citalopram were eligible for a randomized second-step treatment trial. An equipoise-stratified design allowed participants to exclude or include specific treatment strategies. Analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with the acceptability of the following second-step treatments: cognitive therapy versus no cognitive therapy, any switch strategy versus any augmentation strategy (including cognitive therapy), and a medication switch strategy only versus a medication augmentation strategy only. RESULTS: Of the 1,439 participants who entered second-step treatment, 1% accepted all treatment strategies, 3% accepted only cognitive therapy, and 26% accepted cognitive therapy (thus, 71% did not accept cognitive therapy). Those with higher educational levels or a family history of a mood disorder were more likely to accept cognitive therapy. Participants in primary care settings and those who experienced a greater side effect burden or a lower reduction in symptom severity with citalopram were more likely to accept a switch strategy as compared with an augmentation strategy. Those with concurrent drug abuse and recurrent major depressive disorder were less likely to accept a switch strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Few participants accepted all treatments. Acceptance of cognitive therapy was primarily associated with sociodemographic characteristics, while acceptance of a treatment switch was associated with the results of the initial treatment.

Family history of mood disorder and characteristics of major depressive disorder: a STAR*D (sequenced treatment alternatives to relieve depression) study.

INTRODUCTION: Clinicians routinely ask patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) about their family history. It is unknown, however, if patients who report a positive family history differ from those who do not. This study compared the demographic and clinical features of a large cohort of treatment-seeking outpatients with non-psychotic MDD who reported that they did or did not have at least one first-degree relative who had either MDD or bipolar disorder. METHODS: Subjects were recruited for the STAR( *)D multicenter trial. Differences in demographic and clinical features for patients with and without a family history of mood disorders were assessed after correcting for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. RESULTS: Patients with a family history of mood disorder (n=2265; 56.5%) were more frequently women and had an earlier age of onset of depression, as compared to those without such a history (n=1740; 43.5%). No meaningful differences were found in depressive symptoms, severity, recurrence, depressive subtype, or daily function. CONCLUSIONS: Women were twice as likely as men to report a positive family history of mood disorder, and a positive family history was associated with younger age of onset of MDD in the proband. Consistent with prior research, early age of onset appears to define a familial and, by extension, genetic subtype of major depressive disorder.

An evaluation of the quick inventory of depressive symptomatology and the hamilton rating scale for depression: a sequenced treatment alternatives to relieve depression trial report.

BACKGROUND: Nine DSM-IV-TR criterion symptom domains are evaluated to diagnose major depressive disorder (MDD). The Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS) provides an efficient assessment of these domains and is available as a clinician rating (QIDS-C16), a self-report (QIDS-SR16), and in an automated, interactive voice response (IVR) (QIDS-IVR16) telephone system. This report compares the performance of these three versions of the QIDS and the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD17). METHODS: Data were acquired at baseline and exit from the first treatment step (citalopram) in the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) trial. Outpatients with nonpsychotic MDD who completed all four ratings within +/-2 days were identified from the first 1500 STAR*D subjects. Both item response theory and classical test theory analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The three methods for obtaining QIDS data produced consistent findings regarding relationships between the nine symptom domains and overall depression, demonstrating interchangeability among the three methods. The HRSD17, while generally satisfactory, rarely utilized the full range of item scores, and evidence suggested multidimensional measurement properties. CONCLUSIONS: In nonpsychotic MDD outpatients without overt cognitive impairment, clinician assessment of depression severity using either the QIDS-C16 or HRSD17 may be successfully replaced by either the self-report or IVR version of the QIDS.

Evaluation of outcomes with citalopram for depression using measurement-based care in STAR*D: implications for clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are widely used to treat depression, but the rates, timing, and baseline predictors of remission in "real world" patients are not established. The authors' primary objectives in this study were to evaluate the effectiveness of citalopram, an SSRI, using measurement-based care in actual practice, and to identify predictors of symptom remission in outpatients with major depressive disorder. METHOD: This clinical study included outpatients with major depressive disorder who were treated in 23 psychiatric and 18 primary care "real world" settings. The patients received flexible doses of citalopram prescribed by clinicians for up to 14 weeks. The clinicians were assisted by a clinical research coordinator in the application of measurement-based care, which included the routine measurement of symptoms and side effects at each treatment visit and the use of a treatment manual that described when and how to modify medication doses based on these measures. Remission was defined as an exit score of or=50% in baseline QIDS-SR score. RESULTS: Nearly 80% of the 2,876 outpatients in the analyzed sample had chronic or recurrent major depression; most also had a number of comorbid general medical and psychiatric conditions. The mean exit citalopram dose was 41.8 mg/day. Remission rates were 28% (HAM-D) and 33% (QIDS-SR). The response rate was 47% (QIDS-SR). Patients in primary and psychiatric care settings did not differ in remission or response rates. A substantial portion of participants who achieved either response or remission at study exit did so at or after 8 weeks of treatment. Participants who were Caucasian, female, employed, or had higher levels of education or income had higher HAM-D remission rates; longer index episodes, more concurrent psychiatric disorders (especially anxiety disorders or drug abuse), more general medical disorders, and lower baseline function and quality of life were associated with lower HAM-D remission rates. CONCLUSIONS: The response and remission rates in this highly generalizable sample with substantial axis I and axis III comorbidity closely resemble those seen in 8-week efficacy trials. The systematic use of easily implemented measurement-based care procedures may have assisted in achieving these results.

Tranylcypromine versus venlafaxine plus mirtazapine following three failed antidepressant medication trials for depression: a STAR*D report.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness and tolerability of tranylcypromine and combination treatment with extended-release venlafaxine and mirtazapine in patients with treatment-resistant major depression whose current depressive episode had not responded adequately to treatment in three prior prospective medication trials. METHOD: Adult outpatients with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder who had not achieved remission or had withdrawn from treatment because of intolerance in three previous prospective medication trials were randomly assigned to receive open-label treatment with either tranylcypromine (N=58) or extended-release venlafaxine plus mirtazapine (N=51). The primary outcome measure was whether patients achieved remission, which was defined as a score < or =7 at exit on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D). The HAM-D was administered by telephone by raters to whom treatment was masked. RESULTS: Remission rates were not significantly different between the two treatment groups (6.9% for the tranylcypromine group and 13.7% for the venlafaxine plus mirtazapine group). The mean daily dose at exit for tranylcypromine was 36.9 mg (SD=18.5); for venlafaxine, 210.3 mg (SD=95.2); and for mirtazapine, 35.7 mg (SD=17.6). Tranylcypromine was associated with significantly less symptom reduction and greater attrition due to intolerance. CONCLUSIONS: Remission rates were modest for both the tranylcypromine group and the extended-release venlafaxine plus mirtazapine group, and the rates were not statistically different between groups. The lower side effect burden, lack of dietary restrictions, and ease of use of venlafaxine and mirtazapine suggest that this combination may be preferred over tranylcypromine for patients with highly treatment-resistant depression who have not benefited adequately from several prior treatments.

Presenting characteristics of depressed outpatients as a function of recurrence: preliminary findings from the STAR*D clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: Recurrent depression predicts risk for subsequent episodes, but it is unclear how it relates to demographic features, course of illness, and clinical presentation. METHODS: We report on the baseline data for the first 1500 patients enrolled in the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study (www.star-d.org). Patients were required to have a DSM-IV diagnosis of nonpsychotic major depression and to score > or = 14 on the 17-item Hamilton rating scale for depression. Status with respect to recurrent depression and other aspects of illness course and demographic features were ascertained at intake, along with measures of depression and concurrent general medical illness. RESULTS: Patients with recurrent depression were older, had an earlier age of onset, and were more likely to have a positive family history of depression than first episode patients. However, recurrent patients were less likely to be chronic and reported shorter current episodes than first episode patients, something that was largely confined to females. Recurrent patients were more likely than first episode patients to report non-essential aspects of mood, cognition, and somatic symptoms, although largely as a consequence of greater overall depressive symptom severity. CONCLUSIONS: As compared to single episode depressions, recurrent depression was associated with greater symptom severity and illness characteristics suggestive of greater underlying risk, but not other demographic characteristics than age. Risk for recurrence appeared to be distinct from chronic depression. A subset of chronic first episode patients may lack the capacity to remit and may therefore be distinct from those with recurrent episodes.

Enrolling research subjects from clinical practice: ethical and procedural issues in the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) trial.

The Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) trial is a multi-site effectiveness study funded by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) with the aim of identifying successful, acceptable and cost-effective treatment strategies for outpatients with unremitted depression. With enrollment of 4,041 adults with major depressive disorder (MDD), it is the largest controlled psychiatric treatment study ever undertaken. In the course of developing procedures to ensure that ambitious enrollment goals were met, a number of ethical and practical issues became apparent that underscore the conflicts between effectiveness research and human subject protections. These are delineated as they relate to study design; eligibility criteria; incentives to subjects; investigators and clinical sites; the complementary roles of clinical research coordinators (CRCs) and study clinicians; and recruitment and consent procedures. The STAR*D trial exemplifies the interplay and tension between those strategies that integrate research and clinical aims and roles in the service of enhancing external validity, site participation, and recruitment and retention versus those strategies that differentiate research and clinical treatment in the service of research integrity and human subject protections. We hope that a discussion of these key challenges and dilemmas and how they have been addressed will help inform future discussions concerning design and conduct of ethical effectiveness trials designed to optimize care in real world clinical settings.

Comparison of self-report and clinician ratings on two inventories of depressive symptomatology.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the concordance between the self-report and the clinician-rated versions of the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (IDS-30) and between the two versions of the briefer 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS-16). METHODS: Data were gathered for 544 adult outpatients with psychotic (N = 106) or nonpsychotic (N = 438) major depressive disorder at 14 public sector mental health clinics in the Texas Medication Algorithm Project. Data for the QIDS-16 were extracted from the IDS-30. Baseline scores and scores from the final study visit at or before month 12 were analyzed. The clinician-rated and the self-report versions of each scale were compared in their identification of response to treatment and remission. RESULTS: The average baseline IDS-SR-30 total score was 2.2 points higher (indicating greater severity) than the IDS-C-30 score; the average QIDS-SR-16 total score was only .3 points higher than the QIDS-C-16 score. The IDS-SR-30 and the IDS-C-30, as well as the QIDS-C-16 and QIDS-SR-16, agreed substantially in classifying response and remission for patients, regardless of whether the patients had psychotic features. None of a large number of clinical and demographic features accounted for differences between the QIDS-SR-16 and QIDS-C-16 total scores. CONCLUSIONS: Either the IDS-30 or the QIDS-16 self-report adequately assesses depressive symptom severity among public-sector outpatients with major depressive disorder. The briefer QIDS-16 may be preferred to save time and cost.

Clinical and demographic features of atypical depression in outpatients with major depressive disorder: preliminary findings from STAR*D.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency and demographic and clinical characteristics of depression with atypical features in a broadly representative sample of outpatients. METHOD: Data derived from the first 1500 patients with DSM-IV major depressive disorder enrolled in the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression trial at 41 primary care and nonresearch psychiatric outpatient clinics. An algorithm based on the 30-item Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Clinician Rating (IDS-C30) determined presence or absence of depression with atypical features. Odds ratios determined whether a variety of demographic and clinical parameters differed between patients meeting and not meeting atypical criteria. RESULTS: Over 18% of the sample met criteria for atypical features based on items from the IDS-C30. The atypical group was more likely to be female and have an earlier age at onset, greater comorbidity with anxiety symptoms, and greater symptom severity compared with the nonatypical group. CONCLUSION: Previously identified features of atypical depression were confirmed in this large and broadly representative, nonresearch clinical population.

Clinical results for patients with major depressive disorder in the Texas Medication Algorithm Project.

CONTEXT: The Texas Medication Algorithm Project is an evaluation of an algorithm-based disease management program for the treatment of the self-declared persistently and seriously mentally ill in the public mental health sector. OBJECTIVE: To present clinical outcomes for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) during 12-month algorithm-guided treatment (ALGO) compared with treatment as usual (TAU). DESIGN: Effectiveness, intent-to-treat, prospective trial comparing patient outcomes in clinics offering ALGO with matched clinics offering TAU. SETTING: Four ALGO clinics, 6 TAU clinics, and 4 clinics that offer TAU to patients with MDD but provide ALGO for schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. Patients Male and female outpatients with a clinical diagnosis of MDD (psychotic or nonpsychotic) were divided into ALGO and TAU groups. The ALGO group included patients who required an antidepressant medication change or were starting antidepressant therapy. The TAU group initially met the same criteria, but because medication changes were made less frequently in the TAU group, patients were also recruited if their Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale total score was higher than the median for that clinic's routine quarterly evaluation of each patient. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes included (1) symptoms measured by the 30-item Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Clinician-Rated scale (IDS-C(30)) and (2) function measured by the Mental Health Summary score of the Medical Outcomes Study 12-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12) obtained every 3 months. A secondary outcome was the 30-item Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report scale (IDS-SR(30)). RESULTS: All patients improved during the study (P<.001), but ALGO patients had significantly greater symptom reduction on both the IDS-C(30) and IDS-SR(30) compared with TAU. ALGO was also associated with significantly greater improvement in the SF-12 mental health score (P =.046) than TAU. CONCLUSION: The ALGO intervention package during 1 year was superior to TAU for patients with MDD based on clinician-rated and self-reported symptoms and overall mental functioning.

Comorbid psychiatric disorders in depressed outpatients: demographic and clinical features.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the clinical and sociodemographic features associated with various degrees of concurrent comorbidity in adult outpatients with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: Outpatients enrolled in the STAR*D trial completed the Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire (PDSQ). An a priori 90% specificity threshold was set for PDSQ responses to ascertain the presence of 11 different concurrent DSM-IV Axis I disorders. RESULTS: Of 1376 outpatients, 38.2% had no concurrent comorbidities, while 25.6% suffered one, 16.1% suffered two, and 20.2% suffered three or more comorbid conditions. Altogether, 29.3% met threshold for social anxiety disorder, 20.8% for generalized anxiety disorder, 18.8% for posttraumatic stress disorder, 12.4% for bulimia, 11.9% for alcohol abuse/dependence, 13.4% for obsessive-compulsive disorder, 11.1% for panic disorder, 9.4% for agoraphobia, 7.3% for drug abuse/dependence, 3.7% for hypochondriasis, and 2.2% for somatoform disorder. Those with more concurrent Axis I conditions had earlier ages at first onset of MDD, longer histories of MDD, greater depressive symptom severity, more general medical comorbidity (even though they were younger than those with fewer comorbid conditions), poorer physical and mental function, health perceptions, and life satisfaction; and were more likely to be seen in primary care settings. LIMITATIONS: Participants had to meet entry criteria for STAR*D. Ascertainment of comorbid conditions was not based on a structured interview. CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent Axis I conditions (most often anxiety disorders) are very common with MDD. Greater numbers of concurrent comorbid conditions were associated with increased severity, morbidity, and chronicity of their MDD.

One-year clinical outcomes of depressed public sector outpatients: a benchmark for subsequent studies.

BACKGROUND: The symptomatic outcomes of a cohort of public mental health sector depressed outpatients treated for 1 year are described to provide a benchmark for future long-term trials. Baseline moderators of outcome were evaluated. METHODS: Outpatients with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder (n = 118) scoring >/=30 on the 30-item Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Clinician Rating (IDS-C(30)) were treated with a medication algorithm and patient/family education package. Response and remission rates were assessed every 3 months with the IDS-C(30). Logistic regression analyses evaluated several baseline features in relation to outcome. RESULTS: While response and remission rates increased from 3 to 12 months, the 1-year last observation carried forward (LOCF) response (26.3%) and remission (11.0%) rates were not impressive (sustained response = 14.4%; sustained remission = 5.1%). Younger patients and those with full-time employment (at baseline) were more likely to respond. A shorter length of illness tended to be associated with higher response and remission rates (p <.10). Results are generalizable to public sector patients with substantial socioeconomic, general medical, and educational disadvantages who were sufficiently depressed to recommend a change in antidepressant medication. CONCLUSIONS: Response and remission rates were modest when compared with outcomes in shorter duration efficacy trials in depressed outpatients with less chronicity, fewer concurrent general medical conditions, and less treatment resistance. Results support the need for more powerful treatments and/or the better delivery of available treatments.

Itemized clinician ratings versus global ratings of symptom severity in patients with schizophrenia.

This study compares ratings obtained with an itemized clinician-rated symptom severity measure--the 24-item Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS24)--with a Physician Global Rating Scale (PhGRS) and a Patient Global Rating Scale (PtGRS) in assessing treatment outcomes in patients with schizophrenia (SCZ). A total of 91 patients (31 inpatients and 60 outpatients) with SCZ were enrolled in a feasibility study of the use of medication algorithms in the treatment of SCZ. Clinicians completed the BPRS24 and the PhGRS; patients completed the PtGRS at each visit. The analyses reported here were conducted using the original BPRS18 and four items from the BPRS18 that rate the positive symptoms of psychosis (the Positive Symptom Rating Scale or PSRS), comparing anchored with global rating scales and with one another. The PtGRS had the lowest effect size (0.8) and was negatively correlated with the other ratings in inpatients. The PhGRS was significantly correlated (0.46) with the BPRS18, but the same person completed both ratings. The effect size of the PhGRS (0.6) was generally lower than with the BPRS18 (1.4) in differentiating responders from non-responders. On average, the PSRS had a slightly lower effect size than the longer itemized BPRS18, but the results support its use as a quantitative rating in circumstances where it is not feasible to routinely use a lengthier scale.

Texas Medication Algorithm Project, phase 3 (TMAP-3): clinical results for patients with a history of mania.

BACKGROUND: The Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP) assessed the clinical and economic impact of algorithm-driven treatment (ALGO) as compared with treatment-as-usual (TAU) in patients served in public mental health centers. This report presents clinical outcomes in patients with a history of mania (BD), including bipolar I and schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, during 12 months of treatment beginning March 1998 and ending with the final active patient visit in April 2000. METHOD: Patients were diagnosed with bipolar I disorder or schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, according to DSM-IV criteria. ALGO was comprised of a medication algorithm and manual to guide treatment decisions. Physicians and clinical coordinators received training and expert consultation throughout the project. ALGO also provided a disorder-specific patient and family education package. TAU clinics had no exposure to the medication algorithms. Quarterly outcome evaluations were obtained by independent raters. Hierarchical linear modeling, based on a declining effects model, was used to assess clinical outcome of ALGO versus TAU. RESULTS: ALGO and TAU patients showed significant initial decreases in symptoms (p =.03 and p <.001, respectively) measured by the 24-item Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS-24) at the 3-month assessment interval, with significantly greater effects for the ALGO group. Limited catch-up by TAU was observed over the remaining 3 quarters. Differences were also observed in measures of mania and psychosis but not in depression, side-effect burden, or functioning. CONCLUSION: For patients with a history of mania, relative to TAU, the ALGO intervention package was associated with greater initial and sustained improvement on the primary clinical outcome measure, the BPRS-24, and the secondary outcome measure, the Clinician-Administered Rating Scale for Mania (CARS-M). Further research is planned to clarify which elements of the ALGO package contributed to this between-group difference.