Depression-free days as a summary measure of the temporal pattern of response and remission in the treatment of major depression: a comparison of venlafaxine,selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors,and placebo

BACKGROUND: This article develops and applies depression-free days (DFDs) as a summary measure of the temporal pattern of response and remission in a comparison of venlafaxine (a dual-action serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor) with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and placebo. METHOD: Weekly data on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-17) from 2046 patients with DSM-III-R/IV-established moderate-to-severe major depression, participating in 1 of 8 randomized, double-blind, controlled studies that compared venlafaxine with an SSRI (fluoxetine, paroxetine, or fluvoxamine) or with both placebo and an SSRI, were used to estimate DFDs. Maximum DFDs were imputed to maintained HAM-D-17 scores < or = 7 (asymptomatic depression) over time, minimum DFDs to persistent HAM-D-17 scores > or = 15 (acutely symptomatic depression), and prorated DFDs to intermediate HAM-D-17 scores. A secondary construct was developed to test sensitivity to a less stringent upper threshold of acutely symptomatic depression (HAM-D-17 score > or = 22). Using a tertiary construct, sensitivity to a more stringent lower threshold representing elimination of residual symptoms was also evaluated. The construct validity of the primary and the secondary DFDs measures was assessed in terms of their correlation with sustained low clinical global severity of illness (scores of 1 or 2 on the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale). for each construct, DFDs were compared across the 3 treatment groups and corresponding effect sizes were generated. RESULTS: Overall, sustained low clinical global severity of illness was associated with 38.3 median (interquartile range, 29.8 to 44.2) DFDs relative to 5.7 (interquartile range, 0 to 20.6) median DFDs associated with nonsustained low clinical global severity; similar differences emerged in terms of sustained asymptomatic depression. The venlafaxine group (N = 851) experienced a median of 18.8 (interquartile range, 0.4 to 34.6) DFDs compared with a median of 13.6 (interquartile range, 0 to 29.8) DFDs in the SSRI group (N = 749) and 7.4 (interquartile range, 0 to 26.2) DFDs in the placebo group (N = 446) (p <.0001 overall; venlafaxine vs. SSRIs, p =.0015, effect size = 0.2; venlafaxine vs. placebo, p <.0001, effect size = 0.4; and SSRIs vs. placebo, p =.0007, effect size = 0.2). The secondary and tertiary DFDs constructs yielded similar, albeit narrower, differences in all comparisons. CONCLUSION: The construct of DFDs was found to be a useful summary measure of sustained remission. Active treatments were associated with more DFDs than placebo, and venlafaxine with more DFDs than SSRIs, consistent with corresponding differences in sustained remission.     

A double-blind, placebo-controlled study of venlafaxine and fluoxetine in geriatric outpatients with major depression.

BACKGROUND: Despite the high prevalence of depression in elderly patients, few well-designed, placebo-controlled studies of antidepressants have been conducted in this population. This masked, placebo-controlled trial assessed the efficacy and safety of venlafaxine and fluoxetine in depressed patients older than 65 years. METHOD: Three hundred patients were randomly assigned to treatment with venlafaxine immediate release ([IR]; N = 104), fluoxetine (N = 100), or placebo (N = 96) in an eight-week trial. Venlafaxine doses were titrated from 37.5 to 225 mg per day and fluoxetine doses were titrated from 20 to 60 mg per day, as necessary, over 29 days. Efficacy variables included the 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D21) total score, HAM-D21 depressed mood item score, scores on the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) and Improvement (CGI-I) scales, and rates of response (based on change from baseline HAM-D or MADRS score or CGI-I score) and remission (HAM-D17 < or =7). For the purposes of this report, efficacy analyses are focused on the HAM-D21 total score. Safety assessments included monitoring of adverse events (AEs), physical examinations, vital signs assessments, laboratory determinations, and electrocardiograms. RESULTS: In all three of the treatment groups, there was a significant reduction at week 8 compared with the baseline HAM-D21 total score. However, there were no significant differences among the three treatment groups on the change in HAM-D21, MADRS, or CGI scores from baseline to week 8. There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of remitters at the last on-therapy visit. The incidence of individual AEs was higher in the venlafaxine group (27%) compared with patients taking fluoxetine (19%) or placebo (9%). CONCLUSION: In this study, there was no significant difference in efficacy among placebo, venlafaxine, and fluoxetine for the treatment of depression.     

Achieving remission with venlafaxine and fluoxetine in major depression: its relationship to anxiety symptoms

Venlafaxine, a serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), produces significantly higher remission rates in depressed patients than do the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). In this analysis of pooled data, we explored the relationship between differences in treatment efficacy, early improvement of symptoms, and severity of baseline anxiety in depressed patients treated with either venlafaxine or fluoxetine. A pooled analysis was performed on data from 1,454 outpatients with major depression from five double-blind, randomized studies comparing the 6-week efficacy of venlafaxine (542 patients) with fluoxetine (555 patients). The Hamilton rating scale for depression (HAM-D) total and item scores were analyzed at different treatment times up to 6 weeks. Venlafaxine and fluoxetine both produced statistically significant higher response and remission rates compared with placebo starting from week 2 for response and weeks 3 to 4 for remission. Venlafaxine was statistically significantly superior to fluoxetine from week 3 until week 6 in respect of response rate, and from week 2 until week 6 for remission rate. After 1 week of treatment, greater improvement in individual symptoms was observed in the depressed mood, suicide, and psychic anxiety items of the HAM-D scale for both venlafaxine- and fluoxetine-treated patients compared with placebo. Improvement in psychic anxiety was statistically significantly greater with venlafaxine than with fluoxetine. The presence of baseline psychic anxiety correlated significantly to treatment outcome when analyzing the remission rates. In depressed patients with moderate anxiety (HAM-D psychic anxiety score < or = 2), venlafaxine statistically significantly increased remission rates compared with placebo from week 4 until week 6, while a significant effect of fluoxetine on remission rates was observed starting at week 6. Remission rates in the severely anxious depressed patients (score > 2) were statistically significantly higher with venlafaxine than placebo starting from week 3 until the end of the study period, but no difference could be observed between fluoxetine and placebo. Baseline severity of psychic anxiety had a significant impact on remission rates after treatment of patients diagnosed with depression. Venlafaxine's superior remission rates in the more severely anxious patients and its ability to improve psychic anxiety as early as week 1 compared with fluoxetine suggest that venlafaxine's early efficacy on anxiety symptoms may be the basis for its superior efficacy in depression.     

An open study of triiodothyronine augmentation of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in treatment-resistant major depressive disorder

OBJECTIVE: In an open trial, we investigated the efficacy of triiodothyronine (T(3)) adjuvant to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in subjects with major depressive disorder (MDD) resistant to SSRI treatment. METHOD: Twenty subjects who met DSM-IV criteria for MDD (mean +/- SD age = 44.3 +/- 10.3 years; 55% [N = 11] women) and had failed to respond to a course of treatment of at least 8 weeks with an SSRI antidepressant were enrolled in a 4-week open-label augmentation treatment with T(3) 50 microg/day. Atypical and melancholic sub-types of MDD were diagnosed using Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders criteria. We administered the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-17) 4 times during the study (which was conducted between 2001 and 2003). RESULTS: During T(3) augmentation, the severity of depression decreased from an initial mean +/- SD HAM-D-17 score of 20.5 +/- 3.6 to a final HAM-D-17 score of 14.0 +/- 7.1 (p < .001). Seven subjects (35.0%) were treatment responders (HAM-D-17 reduction >or= 50%), and 6 subjects (30.0%) achieved clinical remission (final HAM-D-17 相似文献   

Quetiapine adjunct to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or venlafaxine in patients with major depression, comorbid anxiety, and residual depressive symptoms: a randomized, placebo-controlled pilot study

This double-blind, placebo-controlled study examined the efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine in combination with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs)/venlafaxine in 58 patients with major depressive disorder, comorbid anxiety symptoms (HAM-A-14 score > or =14), and residual depressive symptoms (HAM-D-17 score > or =18, CGI-S score > or =4). Patients had received an SSRI/venlafaxine (at a predefined therapeutic dose) for > or =6 weeks. Overall, 62% (18/29) of quetiapine- and 55% (16/29) of placebo-treated patients completed the study. The mean change in HAM-D and HAM-A total scores from baseline to Week 8 (primary endpoint) was significantly greater with quetiapine (mean dose 182 mg/day) than placebo: -11.2 vs. -5.5 (P=.008) and -12.5 vs. -5.9 (P=.002), respectively. The onset of quetiapine efficacy (HAM-D/HAM-A/CGI-I) was rapid (by Week 1) and continued through to Week 8. Significant differences (P<.05) from baseline to Week 8 were observed between groups in 7/17 HAM-D (including feelings of guilt, suicide) and 6/14 HAM-A items (including tension, cardiovascular symptoms). Response (> or =50% decrease in total score) was higher for quetiapine than placebo: HAM-D, 48% vs. 28% (not significant, NS); HAM-A, 62% vs. 28% (P=.02). Remission (total score < or =7) was higher for quetiapine than placebo: HAM-D, 31% vs. 17% (NS); HAM-A, 41% vs. 17% (NS). CGI-S, CGI-I, and the Global Assessment Scale showed that quetiapine was significantly more effective than placebo. For quetiapine, adverse events (AEs) were similar to those previously observed; sedation/somnolence/lethargy was the most commonly reported. Here quetiapine was shown to be effective as augmentation of SSRI/venlafaxine therapy in patients with major depression, comorbid anxiety, and residual depressive symptoms, with no unexpected tolerability issues. Further studies are warranted.     

Achieving remission from depression with venlafaxine and venlafaxine extended release: a literature review of comparative studies with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate data supporting the ability of venlafaxine, an antidepressant with a dual mechanism of action, to produce remission from depression. METHOD: Review of multicentre, double-blind, randomized studies comparing venlafaxine or venlafaxine extended release (XR) with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), using Hamilton Depression Rating Scale total scores in the range of < or = 7 and < 10 as the final outcome measure, to evaluate the ability of venlafaxine/venlafaxine XR to produce full remission from depression. RESULTS: Venlafaxine/venlafaxine XR demonstrated higher rates of remission than did the SSRIs and placebo. CONCLUSION: With full remission rather than response as the measure of outcome, venlafaxine/venlafaxine XR demonstrated more robust antidepressant efficacy than the SSRIs and placebo. This finding suggests that venlafaxine/venlafaxine XR are appropriate standard-of-care therapies for the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder.     

Efficacy of paroxetine in the treatment of adolescent major depression: a randomized, controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare paroxetine with placebo and imipramine with placebo for the treatment of adolescent depression. METHOD: After a 7- to 14-day screening period, 275 adolescents with major depression began 8 weeks of double-blind paroxetine (20-40 mg), imipramine (gradual upward titration to 200-300 mg), or placebo. The two primary outcome measures were endpoint response (Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HAM-D] score < or = 8 or > or = 50% reduction in baseline HAM-D) and change from baseline HAM-D score. Other depression-related variables were (1) HAM-D depressed mood item; (2) depression item of the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for Adolescents-Lifetime version (K-SADS-L); (3) Clinical Global Impression (CGI) improvement scores of 1 or 2; (4) nine-item depression subscale of K-SADS-L; and (5) mean CGI improvement scores. RESULTS: Paroxetine demonstrated significantly greater improvement compared with placebo in HAM-D total score < or = 8, HAM-D depressed mood item, K-SADS-L depressed mood item, and CGI score of 1 or 2. The response to imipramine was not significantly different from placebo for any measure. Neither paroxetine nor imipramine differed significantly from placebo on parent- or self-rating measures. Withdrawal rates for adverse effects were 9.7% and 6.9% for paroxetine and placebo, respectively. Of 31.5% of subjects stopping imipramine therapy because of adverse effects, nearly one third did so because of adverse cardiovascular effects. CONCLUSIONS: Paroxetine is generally well tolerated and effective for major depression in adolescents.     

Multicenter, placebo-controlled, fixed-dose study of citalopram in moderate-to-severe depression

BACKGROUND: Citalopram, the most selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), is a bicyclic phthalane derivative with a chemical structure that is unrelated to that of other SSRIs and available antidepressants. The drug is approved for use in 69 countries. This 6-week, fixed-dose, placebo-controlled, parallel-arm, multicenter trial was performed to confirm its efficacy and safety in treatment of outpatients with major depression in the United States. METHOD: Six hundred and fifty adult outpatients with moderate-to-severe major depression (DSM-III-R) were randomly assigned to receive citalopram at doses of 10 mg (N = 131), 20 mg (N = 130), 40 mg (N = 131), or 60 mg (N = 129) or placebo (N = 129) once daily. Outcome assessments were the 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), and the Clinical Global Impressions scale. RESULTS: Between-group comparisons of the change from baseline to endpoint revealed significantly greater improvement in the citalopram patients relative to the placebo patients on all 3 efficacy measures. Patients randomly assigned to 40 mg/day and 60 mg/day of citalopram showed significantly greater improvement than placebo on all efficacy measures, as well as on the HAM-D symptom clusters measuring depressed mood, melancholia, cognitive disturbance, and psychomotor retardation. Patients who received 10 mg/day and 20 mg/day of citalopram also showed consistent improvement relative to placebo on all efficacy ratings, with statistical significance demonstrated in the MADRS response rate, the HAM-D depressed mood item, and the HAM-D melancholia subscale. Citalopram was well tolerated, with only 15% of patients discontinuing for adverse events. The side effects most commonly associated with citalopram treatment were nausea, dry mouth, somnolence, insomnia, and increased sweating. CONCLUSION: Citalopram was significantly more effective than placebo in the treatment of moderate-to-severe major depression, especially symptoms of depressed mood and melancholia, with particularly robust effects shown at doses of 40 and 60 mg/day. Citalopram was well tolerated in spite of forced upward titration to fixed-dose levels, with a low incidence of anxiety, agitation, and nervousness.     

One-year costs of second-line therapies for depression

BACKGROUND: We compared patterns of medical resource utilization and costs among patients receiving a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (venlafaxine), one of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), one of the tricyclic agents (TCAs), or 1 of 3 other second-line therapies for depression. METHOD: Using claims data from a national managed care organization, we identified patients diagnosed with depression (ICD-9-CM criteria) who received second-line antidepressant therapy between 1993 and 1997. Second-line therapy was defined as a switch from the first class of antidepressant therapy observed in the data set within 1 year of a diagnosis of depression to a different class of antidepressant therapy. Patients with psychiatric comorbidities were excluded. RESULTS: Of 981 patients included in the study, 21% (N = 208) received venlafaxine, 34% (N = 332) received an SSRI, 19% (N = 191) received a TCA, and 25% (N = 250) received other second-line antidepressant therapy. Mean age was 43 years, and 72% of patients were women. Age, prescriber of second-line therapy, and prior 6-month expenditures all differed significantly among the 4 therapy groups. Total, depression-coded, and non-depression-coded 1-year expenditures were, respectively, $6945, $2064, and $4881 for venlafaxine; $7237, $1682, and $5555 for SSRIs; $7925, $1335, and $6590 for TCAs; and $7371, $2222, and $5149 for other antidepressants. In bivariate analyses, compared with TCA-treated patients, venlafaxine- and SSRI-treated patients had significantly higher depression-coded but significantly lower non-depression-coded expenditures. Venlafaxine was associated with significantly higher depression-coded expenditures than SSRIs. However, after adjustment for potential confounding covariables in multivariate analyses, only the difference in depression-coded expenditures between SSRI and TCA therapy remained significant. CONCLUSION: After adjustment for confounding patient characteristics, 1-year medical expenditures were generally similar among patients receiving venlafaxine, SSRIs, TCAs, and other second-line therapies for depression. Observed differences in patient characteristics and unadjusted expenditures raise questions as to how different types of patients are selected to receive alternative second-line therapies for depression.     

Comparative efficacy between venlafaxine and SSRIs: a pooled analysis of patients with depression.

BACKGROUND: Serotonergic and adrenergic enhancement may be synergistic and more effective than serotonergic enhancement alone in treating depression. The dual serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) venlafaxine is a dual reuptake inhibitor that may therefore offer greater efficacy than selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). METHODS: Data from eight randomized, double-blind, controlled studies were pooled to compare efficacy in depressed patients receiving venlafaxine/venlafaxine extended release (XR), SSRIs, or placebo for 相似文献   

A randomized trial comparing paroxetine and venlafaxine in the treatment of bipolar depressed patients taking mood stabilizers

BACKGROUND: The treatment of depressive episodes occurring in bipolar patients taking mood stabilizers is an understudied area of research with outstanding clinical consequences. This study was aimed to assess and compare the efficacy and safety of 2 different antidepressant drugs, paroxetine and venlafaxine, in this indication. METHOD: Sixty DSM-IV bipolar patients. each presenting with a major depressive episode while receiving mood stabilizers, were randomly assigned to either paroxetine (N = 30) or venlafaxine (N = 30) for 6 weeks in a single-blind manner. They had to score higher than 17 on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-17) and have their mood stabilizer blood levels within the therapeutic range. Efficacy was measured by the HAM-D. Reports of side effects were collected at each visit; switch to mania or hypomania was specifically assessed by the Young Mania Rating Scale at 5 of 7 visits. RESULTS: Significant improvements in HAM-D scores were observed in both paroxetine- and venlafaxine-treated patients (Wilcoxon p < .0001). There were no significant differences in either efficacy or safety measures between the 2 drugs. By intention-to-treat analysis, 43% (N = 13) of patients taking paroxetine and 48% (N = 14) taking venlafaxine were considered to be responders. Only 3% (N = 1) of patients switched to hypomania or mania in the paroxetine group, whereas 13% (N = 4) switched in the venlafaxine group. CONCLUSION: Paroxetine and venlafaxine are both effective and safe in the treatment of depressive breakthrough episodes in bipolar disorder. There was a suggestion of a slightly higher risk for switch to mania or hypomania with venlafaxine.     

Once-daily venlafaxine extended release (XR) compared with fluoxetine in outpatients with depression and anxiety. Venlafaxine XR 360 Study Group

BACKGROUND: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the efficacy and safety of once-daily venlafaxine extended release (XR) and fluoxetine in outpatients with major depression and concomitant anxiety. METHOD: Patients who met DSM-IV criteria for major depressive disorder and satisfied eligibility criteria were randomly assigned to once-daily venlafaxine XR, fluoxetine, or placebo for 12 weeks. Efficacy was assessed with the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A), and Clinical Global Impressions scale. RESULTS: Among 359 outpatients, venlafaxine XR and fluoxetine were significantly superior (p < .05) to placebo on the HAM-D total score beginning at week 2 and continuing to the end of the study. Venlafaxine XR but not fluoxetine was significantly better than placebo at week 2 on the HAM-D depressed mood item. At week 12, the HAM-D response rate was 43% on placebo, 67% on venlafaxine XR, and 62% on fluoxetine (p < .05). The HAM-D remission rate was significantly higher (p < .05) at weeks 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, and final evaluation with venlafaxine XR and at weeks 8, 12, and final evaluation with fluoxetine than with placebo. The HAM-A response rate was significantly higher (p < .05) with venlafaxine XR than with fluoxetine at week 12. The incidence of discontinuation for adverse events was 5% with placebo, 10% with venlafaxine XR, and 7% with fluoxetine. CONCLUSION: Once-daily venlafaxine XR is effective and well tolerated for the treatment of major depression and concomitant anxiety and provides evidence for superiority over fluoxetine.     

Efficacy and safety of mirtazapine in major depressive disorder patients after SSRI treatment failure: an open-label trial

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of mirtazapine in depressed outpatients who have shown nonresponse or intolerance to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) therapy. METHOD: In this open-label, 8-week study, the efficacy and safety of mirtazapine among 103 outpatients with DSM-IV major depressive disorder who had failed previous therapy with an SSRI (fluoxetine, paroxetine, or sertraline) were evaluated. The primary efficacy measure was the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-17), and safety assessments included reported adverse events, routine laboratory assessments, physical examinations, and assessments of vital signs. A 4-day washout period followed by mirtazapine treatment was compared with an immediate switch from the SSRI to mirtazapine. RESULTS: Based on mean HAM-D-17 scores at endpoint and response rates of 48% based on the criterion of > or = 50% reduction in HAM-D-17 score, mirtazapine was found to be an effective treatment for a substantial proportion of patients for whom an SSRI was ineffective and/or poorly tolerated. Mirtazapine was well tolerated, with sedation and appetite increase/weight gain the most commonly reported adverse events. In addition, no difference in efficacy, safety, or tolerability was observed for patients undergoing an immediate switch from an SSRI (after having been tapered to the minimal effective dose) to mirtazapine, compared with those undergoing the imposition of a 4-day drug-free washout. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that an immediate switch to mirtazapine may be a valid therapeutic option among patients who cannot tolerate or do not respond to SSRIs.     

Efficacy of SSRIs and newer antidepressants in severe depression: comparison with TCAs.

BACKGROUND: The significant morbidity and mortality associated with severe depression and its psychotic or melancholic subtypes necessitate effective and well-tolerated therapy. This review evaluates antidepressant treatments for patients with severe depression. DATA SOURCES: Comparative clinical trials conducted on patients with severe depression were found by an English-language MEDLINE search (1985 to present). Additional studies were identified in article bibliographies. Search terms included depressive disorders, depression and severe, hospitalized, melancholic or melancholia, psychotic, and endogenous. STUDY FINDINGS: Evidence for efficacy of SSRIs in severe or melancholic depression comes from a small but growing number of controlled studies with adequate samples, as well as meta-analyses and retrospective subgroup analysis of premarketing trials. In studies that defined response as a 50% or greater reduction in Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) scores, response rates ranged from 53% to 64% for SSRIs and 43% to 70% for TCAs. In separate trials on severe depression, venlafaxine and mirtazapine were both more effective than placebo and an active comparator. Nefazodone and bupropion were each found to be more effective than placebo in studies of severe depression. Venlafaxine and mirtazapine have been found to be more effective than fluoxetine. CONCLUSION: SSRIs and TCAs are comparably effective for the treatment of severe or melancholic depression. SSRIs and other newer agents appear to be better tolerated than TCAs, specifically lacking adverse anticholinergic and cardiovascular effects that may limit the use of TCAs. Emerging data with venlafaxine and mirtazapine in severely depressed patients with or without melancholia support the efficacy of these treatments. Nefazodone and bupropion were found to be effective in hospitalized depressed patients. Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) or combined antidepressant therapy may be useful in some patients with severe depression. Patients with severe psychotic depression may respond better to an antipsychotic-antidepressant combination.     

A critical examination of the sensitivity of unidimensional subscales derived from the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale to antidepressant drug effects

Unidimensional subscales for assessment of major depression may be more sensitive to antidepressant drug effects than the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D). To further examine this possibility, we analyzed pooled data from eight comparable, well-controlled clinical trials of venlafaxine and compared such subscales and the 17-item HAM-D (HAM-D₁₇) based on effect size and number of patients required for 80% power. Symptoms of depression were assessed using the HAM-D among intent-to-treat patients (2045) randomly assigned to receive venlafaxine (immediate release, n=474; extended release, n=377), one of several selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) (n=748), or placebo (n=446) for up to 8 weeks. With SSRIs or venlafaxine vs. placebo, subscales yielded effect sizes (0.328–0.528) 16 to 76% larger than the HAM-D₁₇ did (0.237 and 0.396, respectively), and required 31 to 64% fewer patients for 80% power. With venlafaxine vs. SSRIs, the subscales showed no advantage over the HAM-D₁₇; all devices yielded comparable, positive effect sizes (0.183–0.195). Final subscale scores significantly predicted (all P<0.05) whether patients met criteria for remission (eg, HAM-D₁₇ score of 7). These findings suggest that unidimensional subscales are more sensitive to antidepressant drug effects than the HAM-D₁₇ is, but only in active agent/placebo comparisons. Our data further suggest the subscales can predict the presence of remission. Given these findings, prudent use of these subscales may be appropriate, cost-effective, and informative.     

Gepirone extended-release treatment of anxious depression: evidence from a retrospective subgroup analysis in patients with major depressive disorder

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of gepirone extended-release (ER) tablets in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and high ratings of anxiety (anxious depression). METHOD: This subgroup analysis was derived from an 8-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of gepirone ER in patients with MDD. Male and female patients 18 to 69 years of age who met DSM-IV criteria for MDD and had high ratings of anxiety (Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HAM-D-17] total score > or = 20 and HAM-D-17 factor I [anxiety/somatization] score > 6) were included in this subgroup analysis. Eligible patients with anxious depression were randomly assigned to receive either placebo or gepirone ER, 20 mg to 80 mg daily. Patient assessments were performed at weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8. Treatment efficacy was evaluated by mean HAM-D-17 total scores and mean changes from baseline in (1) HAM-D-17 total scores, (2) HAM-D-17 factor I (anxiety/somatization) scores, and (3) HAM-D-17 item 12 (anxiety, psychic) scores. All statistical tests were 2-sided and considered statistically significant if the p value was <.05. Between-group comparisons were analyzed using least-squares analysis of variance on the change from baseline at each visit with the last observation carried forward (LOCF). The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for center was also performed on the percentage of patients in each treatment group at each visit (LOCF) who met the response criterion on the HAM-D-17 (> or = 50% decrease from baseline) or remission criterion (HAM-D-17 total score < or = 7). RESULTS: Gepirone ER-treated patients (N = 58) experienced a statistically significant (p <.05) reduction in mean HAM-D-17 total score at week 3, 6, and 8 compared with placebo-treated patients (N = 75). A statistically significant effect (p <.05) in favor of gepirone ER was observed in mean change from baseline in HAM-D-17 total scores and for HAM-D factor I (anxiety/somatization) scores from week 2 onward. A statistically significant (p < or =.01) effect in favor of gepirone ER was observed in HAM-D-17 item 12 (anxiety, psychic) scores throughout the 8-week trial. There were significantly more patients in the gepirone ER group compared with the placebo group who were HAM-D-17 responders (p <.05) at endpoint and who met the criteria for HAM-D-17 remission at week 3 (p <.05) and weeks 6 and 8 (p <.01). Overall, gepirone ER was well tolerated, with rates of weight gain and sexual dysfunction comparable to placebo. Adverse events were generally mild to moderate. The most commonly reported adverse events were dizziness and nausea. CONCLUSIONS: Gepirone ER is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for patients with anxious depression.     

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.     

Difference in pre- and post-treatment plasma DHEA levels were significantly and positively correlated with difference in pre- and post-treatment Hamilton depression scores following successful therapy for major depression

OBJECTIVE: Clinical studies of endogenous concentrations of dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) and its relation to depression are limited. This study examined whether pre- and post-treatment changes in plasma DHEA levels are correlated with pre- and post-treatment differences in Hamilton depression scores following successful antidepressant therapy for major depression with venlafaxine XR. METHOD: Thirty-four medication-free major depressive outpatients (Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression 17, HAM-D 17 score > or = 17) were treated with antidepressants. At baseline, plasma DHEA levels of all subjects were measured but only those who remitted (HAM-D 17 score < or = 7) before the end of this study had their plasma DHEA levels measured at remission-onset. Blood from subjects was drawn at 0900-1100 h. Depression severity was assessed with the HAM-D 17 scale at baseline, and on day 7, 14, 28, 56 and 84. Subjects were administered at minimum 75 mg/day venlafaxine XR until remission onset. RESULTS: Fifteen patients remitted before the end of this study. Plasma DHEA levels decreased from baseline to remission was significant (P=0.017). After controlling for age and gender, pre- and post-treatment difference in Hamilton depression scores and the pre- and post-treatment difference in DHEA concentrations were significantly correlated (P=0.044). CONCLUSION: This preliminary study provides the first clinical evidence identifying that difference in pre- and post-treatment plasma DHEA levels were significantly and positively correlated with difference in pre- and post-treatment Hamilton depression scores following successful therapy with venlafaxine XR for major depression in remitters; but non-remitters were not examined. It is not known if DHEA levels would show similar or dissimilar changes in non-remitters.     

An open pilot study combining risperidone and a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor as initial antidepressant therapy

BACKGROUND: Atypical antipsychotics such as risperidone or olanzapine have been reported to be effective when added to a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) in cases of depression in which treatment with an SSRI alone is not effective. It is possible that the combination of an SSRI and an atypical antipsychotic may be efficacious as an initial treatment for major depression. METHOD: Thirty-six subjects who fulfilled DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder were given fluvoxamin, 50 or 75 mg/day, with risperidone, 0.5 or 1 mg/day, at the start of treatment. The dose of fluvoxamine was increased to 100 or 150 mg/day on the fourth day of the treatment and maintained thereafter. Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) scores were obtained at base-line and every week for 6 weeks. Remission and response were defined, respectively, as > or = 75% and 50%-74% reduction from baseline in HAM-D score. RESULTS: Of 30 subjects who completed the 6-week study, 23 (76%) achieved remission, 5 (17%) achieved response, and 2 (7%) were nonresponsive. Of the 6 patients who did not complete the study, 3 showed remission, 1 showed response, and 2 showed minimal or no response by the time of dropout. The reported adverse effects were mild, and none of the 36 subjects enrolled in the study manifested or reported extrapyramidal symptoms, nausea, or vomiting. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that the combination of risperidone and fluvoxamine from the beginning of antidepressant therapy enhances the therapeutic response rate in depression.