Comparative effectiveness research trial for antidepressant incomplete and non-responders with treatment resistant depression (ASCERTAIN-TRD) a randomized clinical trial.

Further research is needed to help improve both the standard of care and the outcome for patients with treatment-resistant depression. A particularly critical evidence gap exists with respect to whether pharmacological or non-pharmacological augmentation is superior to antidepressant switch, or vice-versa. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of augmentation with aripiprazole or repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation versus switching to the antidepressant venlafaxine XR (or duloxetine for those not eligible to receive venlafaxine) for treatment-resistant depression. In this multi-site, 8-week, randomized, open-label study, 278 subjects (196 females and 82 males, mean age 45.6 years (SD 15.3)) with treatment-resistant depression were assigned in a 1:1:1 fashion to treatment with either of these three interventions; 235 subjects completed the study. 260 randomized subjects with at least one post-baseline Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating (MADRS) assessment were included in the analysis. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (score change (standard error (se)) = -17.39 (1.3) (p = 0.015) but not aripiprazole augmentation (score change (se) = -14.9 (1.1) (p = 0.069) was superior to switch (score change (se) = -13.22 (1.1)) on the MADRS. Aripiprazole (mean change (se) = -37.79 (2.9) (p = 0.003) but not repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation augmentation (mean change (se) = -42.96 (3.6) (p = 0.031) was superior to switch (mean change (se) = -34.45 (3.0)) on the symptoms of depression questionnaire. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation augmentation was shown to be more effective than switching antidepressants in treatment-resistant depression on the study primary measure. In light of these findings, clinicians should consider repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation augmentation early-on for treatment-resistant depression.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02977299.

Adverse effects of methylphenidate for apathy in patients with Alzheimer's disease (ADMET2 trial).

OBJECTIVES: To examine clinically important adverse events (AEs) associated with methylphenidate (MPH) treatment of apathy in Alzheimer's Disease (AD) versus placebo, including weight loss, vital signs, falls, and insomnia. METHODS: The Apathy in Dementia Methylphenidate Trial 2 (ADMET2) trial was a multicenter randomized, placebo-controlled trial of MPH to treat apathy in individuals with apathy and AD. Participants in ADMET2 had vital signs and weight measured at monthly visits through 6 months. AEs, including insomnia, falls, and cardiovascular events, were reported at every visit by participants and families using a symptom checklist. RESULTS: The study included 98 participants in the MPH group and 101 in the placebo group. Participants in the MPH group experienced greater weight loss on average than the placebo through the 6-month follow-up, with a difference in change between MPH and placebo of 2.8 lb (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.7, 4.9 lb). No treatment group differences in change during the trial were found in systolic and diastolic blood pressure. More participants in the MPH group reported falls during the follow-up, 10 versus 6 in MPH and placebo groups, respectively. No differences in post-baseline insomnia were observed between the treatment groups. No participants reported instances of myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, arrhythmia, stroke, or cardiomyopathy throughout the study period. CONCLUSIONS: MPH use in AD patients for treating apathy is relatively safe, particularly notable given the many medical comorbidities in this population. There was a statistically significant but modest weight loss associated with MPH use, and clinicians are thus advised to monitor weight during MPH treatment.

Measuring clinically relevant change in apathy symptoms in ADMET and ADMET 2.

OBJECTIVES: Among participants with Alzheimer's disease (AD) we estimated the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in apathy symptom severity on three scales. DESIGN: Retrospective anchor- and distribution-based analyses of change in apathy symptom scores. SETTING: Apathy in Dementia Methylphenidate Trial (ADMET) and ADMET 2 randomized controlled trials conducted at three and ten clinics specialized in dementia care in United States and Canada, respectively. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and sixty participants (60 ADMET, 200 ADMET 2) with clinically significant apathy in Alzheimer's disease. MEASUREMENTS: The Clinical Global Impression of Change in Apathy scale was used as the anchor measure and the MCID on the Neuropsychiatric Inventory - Apathy (NPI-A), Dementia Apathy Interview and Rating (DAIR), and Apathy Evaluation Scale-Informant (AES-I) were estimated with linear mixed models across all study visits. The estimated thresholds were evaluated with performance metrics. RESULTS: Among the MCID was a decrease of four points (95% CI: -4.0 to -4.8) on the NPI-A, 0.56 points (95% CI: -0.47 to -0.65) on the DAIR, and three points on the AES-I (95% CI: -0.9 to -5.4). Distribution-based analyses were largely consistent with the anchor-based analyses. The MCID across the three measures showed ∼60% accuracy. Sensitivity analyses found that MMSE scores and apathy severity at baseline influenced the estimated MCID. CONCLUSIONS: MCIDs for apathy on three scales will help evaluate treatment efficacy at the individual level. However, the modest correspondence between MCID and clinical impression of change suggests the need to consider other scales.

Heterogeneity of Response to Methylphenidate in Apathetic Patients in the ADMET 2 Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The Apathy in Dementia Methylphenidate Trial 2 (ADMET 2) found that methylphenidate was effective in treating apathy with a small-to-medium effect size but showed heterogeneity in response. We assessed clinical predictors of response to help determine individual likelihood of treatment benefit from methylphenidate. DESIGN: Univariate and multivariate analyses of 22 clinical predictors of response chosen a priori. SETTING: Data from the ADMET 2 randomized, placebo controlled multi-center clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Alzheimer's disease patients with clinically significant apathy. MEASUREMENTS: Apathy assessed with the Neuropsychiatric Inventory apathy domain (NPI-A). RESULTS: In total, 177 participants (67% male, mean [SD] age 76.4 [7.9], mini-mental state examination 19.3 [4.8]) had 6-months follow up data. Six potential predictors met criteria for inclusion in multivariate modeling. Methylphenidate was more efficacious in participants without NPI anxiety (change in NPI-A -2.21, standard error [SE]:0.60) or agitation (-2.63, SE:0.68), prescribed cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEI) (-2.44, SE:0.62), between 52 and 72 years of age (-2.93, SE:1.05), had 73-80 mm Hg diastolic blood pressure (-2.43, SE: 1.03), and more functional impairment (-2.56, SE:1.16) as measured by the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study Activities of Daily Living scale. CONCLUSION: Individuals who were not anxious or agitated, younger, prescribed a ChEI, with optimal (73-80 mm Hg) diastolic blood pressure, or having more impaired function were more likely to benefit from methylphenidate compared to placebo. Clinicians may preferentially consider methylphenidate for apathetic AD participants already prescribed a ChEI and without baseline anxiety or agitation.

Cost consequence analysis of Apathy in Dementia Methylphenidate Trial 2 (ADMET 2).

BACKGROUND: This paper used data from the Apathy in Dementia Methylphenidate Trial 2 (NCT02346201) to conduct a planned cost consequence analysis to investigate whether treatment of apathy with methylphenidate is economically attractive. METHODS: A total of 167 patients with clinically significant apathy randomized to either methylphenidate or placebo were included. The Resource Utilization in Dementia Lite instrument assessed resource utilization for the past 30 days and the EuroQol five dimension five level questionnaire assessed health utility at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. Resources were converted to costs using standard sources and reported in 2021 USD. A repeated measures analysis of variance compared change in costs and utility over time between the treatment and placebo groups. A binary logistic regression was used to assess cost predictors. RESULTS: Costs were not significantly different between groups whether the cost of methylphenidate was excluded (F(2,330) = 0.626, ηp2 = 0.004, p = 0.535) or included (F(2,330) = 0.629, ηp2 = 0.004, p = 0.534). Utility improved with methylphenidate treatment as there was a group by time interaction (F(2,330) = 7.525, ηp2 = 0.044, p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: Results from this study indicated that there was no evidence for a difference in resource utilization costs between methylphenidate and placebo treatment. However, utility improved significantly over the 6-month follow-up period. These results can aid in decision-making to improve quality of life in patients with Alzheimer's disease while considering the burden on the healthcare system.

Measuring Apathy in Alzheimer's Disease in the Apathy in Dementia Methylphenidate Trial 2 (ADMET 2): A Comparison of Instruments.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic criteria for apathy have been published but have yet to be evaluated in the context of clinical trials. The Apathy in Dementia Methylphenidate Trial 2 (ADMET 2) operationalized the diagnostic criteria for apathy (DCA) into a clinician-rated questionnaire informed by interviews with the patient and caregiver. OBJECTIVE: The goal of the present study was to compare the classification of apathy using the DCA with that using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory-apathy (NPI-apathy) subscale in ADMET 2. Comparisons between NPI-Apathy and Dementia Apathy Interview Rating (DAIR) scale, and DCA and DAIR were also explored. METHODS: ADMET 2 is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial examining the effects of 20 mg/day methylphenidate on symptoms of apathy over 6 months in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD). Participants scoring at least 4 on the NPI-Apathy were recruited. This analysis focuses on cross-sectional correlations between baseline apathy scale scores using cross-tabulation. RESULTS: Of 180 participants, the median age was 76.5 years and they were predominantly white (92.8%) and male (66.1%). The mean (±standard deviation) scores were 7.7 ± 2.4 on the NPI-apathy, and 1.9 ± 0.5 on the DAIR. Of those with NPI-defined apathy, 169 (93.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 89.3%-96.9%) met DCA diagnostic criteria. The DCA and DAIR overlapped on apathy diagnosis for 169 participants (93.9%, 95% CI 89.3%-96.9%). CONCLUSION: The measurements used for the assessment of apathy in patients with AD had a high degree of overlap with the DCA. The NPI-apathy cut-off used to determine apathy in ADMET 2 selects those likely to meet DCA criteria.

Neurobiologic Rationale for Treatment of Apathy in Alzheimer's Disease With Methylphenidate.

The public health burden of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is related not only to cognitive symptoms, but also to neuropsychiatric symptoms, including apathy. Apathy is defined as a quantitative reduction of goal-directed activity in comparison to a previous level of functioning and affects 30%-70% of persons with AD. Previous attempts to treat apathy in AD-both nonpharmacologically and pharmacologically-have been wanting. Catecholaminergic treatment with methylphenidate has shown encouraging results in initial trials of apathy in AD. Understanding the neuronal circuits underlying motivated behavior and their reliance on catecholamine actions helps provide a rationale for methylphenidate actions in the treatment of apathy in patients with AD. Anatomical, physiological, and behavioral studies have identified parallel, cortical-basal ganglia circuits that govern action, cognition, and emotion and play key roles in motivated behavior. Understanding the distinct contributions to motivated behavior of subregions of the prefrontal cortex-dorsolateral, orbital-ventromedial, and dorsomedial-helps to explain why degeneration of these areas in AD results in apathetic behaviors. We propose that the degeneration of the prefrontal cortex in AD produces symptoms of apathy. We further propose that methylphenidate treatment may ameliorate those symptoms by boosting norepinephrine and dopamine actions in prefrontal-striatal-thalamocortical circuits.

A 12-Month Open-Label Extension Study of the Safety and Tolerability of Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate for Major Depressive Disorder in Adults.

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND: Psychostimulant augmentation is considered a potential treatment strategy for individuals with major depressive disorder who do not adequately respond to antidepressant monotherapy. The primary objective of this 12-month open-label extension study was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) as augmentation therapy to an antidepressant in adults with major depressive disorder. METHODS/PROCEDURES: Eligible adults who completed 1 of 3 short-term antecedent LDX augmentation of antidepressant monotherapy studies were treated with dose-optimized LDX (20-70 mg) for up to 52 weeks while continuing on the index antidepressant (escitalopram, sertraline, venlafaxine extended-release, or duloxetine) assigned during the antecedent short-term studies. Safety and tolerability assessments included the occurrence of treatment-emergent adverse events and vital sign changes. FINDINGS/RESULTS: All 3 antecedent studies failed to meet the prespecified primary efficacy endpoint, so this open-label study was terminated early. Headache (15.5% [241/1559]), dry mouth (13.6% [212/1559]), insomnia (13.1% [204/1559]), and decreased appetite (12.1% [189/1559]) were the most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events. The greatest mean ± SD increases observed for systolic and diastolic blood pressure and for pulse were 2.6 ± 10.85 and 1.7 ± 7.94 mm Hg and 6.9 ± 10.27 bpm, respectively. Monitoring determined that less than 1% of participants experienced potentially clinically important changes in systolic blood pressure (10 [0.6%]), diastolic blood pressure (8 [0.5%]), or pulse (6 [0.4%]). IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS: The overall safety and tolerability of long-term LDX augmentation of antidepressant monotherapy was consistent with the profiles of the short-term antecedent studies, with no evidence of new safety signals.

Duloxetine for the Treatment of Patients with Suspected Sphincter of Oddi Dysfunction: A Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the tolerability and efficacy of duloxetine in patients with suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD). METHODS: An open-label, single-center, 12-week trial of duloxetine 60 mg once daily was conducted in 20 patients with suspected SOD. All patients were evaluated by expert pancreato-biliary specialists. The primary outcome measure was a Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scale. Secondary measures included the pain burden, assessed by the Recurrent Abdominal Pain Intensity and Disability scale, the Short-Form Health Survey, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. A positive clinical response was defined as a PGIC score of much or very much improved at 3 months and was estimated using a two-sided 90 % confidence interval. The primary outcome was analyzed using a one-sample binomial test at a significance level of 0.10. RESULTS: Of the 20 screened patients, 18 were enrolled; 14 completed at least one post-baseline evaluation; and 10 patients completed the third month endpoint visit. Patients missing the third month visit were considered non-responders for the primary outcome. Response rates were 90 % for study completers (n = 10; 90 % CI 74-100; p = 0.02) and 64 % for patients who completed at least one post-baseline evaluation (n = 14; 90 % CI 43-85; p = 0.42). Seven patients did not complete the study due to adverse events (mostly fatigue and nausea). CONCLUSIONS: Duloxetine showed an indication of efficacy in the treatment of pain in patients with suspected SOD, but adverse events limited its use. These preliminary, open-label results justify definitive placebo-controlled trials.

Psychosocial characteristics and pain burden of patients with suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction in the EPISOD multicenter trial.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with several painful functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs) are reported to have a high prevalence of psychosocial disturbance. These aspects have not been studied extensively in patients with suspected Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD). METHODS: A total of 214 patients with post-cholecystectomy pain and suspected SOD were enrolled in seven US centers in a multicenter-randomized trial (Evaluating Predictors and Interventions in Sphincter of Oddi Dysfunction). Baseline assessments included pain descriptors and burden, structured psychosocial assessments of anxiety/depression, coping, trauma, and health-related quality of life. Patients with high levels of depression, suicidal ideation, or psychosis were excluded. RESULTS: The study population (92% female, mean age 38) reported anxiety (9%), depression (8%), past sexual trauma (18%), and physical abuse (10%). Of the total screened population (n=1460), 3.9% of the patients were excluded because of the presence of defined severe psychological problems. The mean medical outcomes study short-form-36 (SF-36) physical and mental composite scores were 38.70 (s.d.=7.89) and 48.74 (s.d.=9.60), respectively. Most subjects reported symptoms of other FGIDs. There were no correlations between the extent of the pain burden in the 3 months before enrollment and the baseline anxiety scores or victimization history. However, those with greater pain burden were significantly more depressed. There were no meaningful differences in the psychosocial parameters in subjects with or without irritable bowel, and those who had cholecystectomy for stones or functional gallbladder disease. Those declining randomization were comparable to those randomized. CONCLUSIONS: Psychosocial comorbidity in SOD is high. However, it does not appear to differ significantly from that reported in surveys of age- and gender-matched general populations, and may be lower than reported with other FGIDs.