A comparison of mirtazapine and nortriptyline following two consecutive failed medication treatments for depressed outpatients: a STAR*D report

OBJECTIVE: Few controlled studies have addressed the issue of which antidepressant medications should be recommended for outpatients who have not responded to multiple treatment trials. This study compared the efficacy of switching to mirtazapine to that of switching to a tricyclic antidepressant (nortriptyline) following two prospective, consecutive, unsuccessful medication treatments for nonpsychotic major depressive disorder. METHOD: Following lack of remission or an inability to tolerate an initial trial of citalopram for up to 12 weeks (first step) and a second trial with either monotherapy involving another antidepressant or augmentation of citalopram with bupropion or buspirone (second step), adult outpatients (N=235) with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder were randomly assigned to 14 weeks of treatment with mirtazapine (up to 60 mg/day) (N=114) or nortriptyline (up to 200 mg/day) (N=121). The primary outcome, symptom remission, was defined a priori as a total exit score of /=50% reduction in score from baseline). RESULTS: For mirtazapine, remission rates were 12.3% and 8.0% per the Hamilton and QIDS-SR(16) scores, respectively. For nortriptyline, remission rates were 19.8% and 12.4%, respectively. QIDS-SR(16) response rates were 13.4% for mirtazapine and 16.5% for nortriptyline. Neither response nor remission rates statistically differed by treatment, nor did these two treatments differ in tolerability or adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Switching to a third antidepressant monotherapy regimen after two consecutive unsuccessful antidepressant trials resulted in low remission rates (<20%) among patients with major depressive disorder.     

A comparison of lithium and T(3) augmentation following two failed medication treatments for depression: a STAR*D report

OBJECTIVE: More than 40% of patients with major depressive disorder do not achieve remission even after two optimally delivered trials of antidepressant medications. This study compared the effectiveness of lithium versus triiodothyronine (T(3)) augmentation as a third-step treatment for patients with major depressive disorder. METHOD: A total of 142 adult outpatients with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder who had not achieved remission or who were intolerant to an initial prospective treatment with citalopram and a second switch or augmentation trial were randomly assigned to augmentation with lithium (up to 900 mg/day; N=69) or with T(3) (up to 50 mug/day; N=73) for up to 14 weeks. The primary outcome measure was whether participants achieved remission, which was defined as a score < or =7 on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. RESULTS: After a mean of 9.6 weeks (SD=5.2) of treatment, remission rates were 15.9% with lithium augmentation and 24.7% with T(3) augmentation, although the difference between treatments was not statistically significant. Lithium was more frequently associated with side effects (p=0.045), and more participants in the lithium group left treatment because of side effects (23.2% versus 9.6%; p=0.027). CONCLUSIONS: Remission rates with lithium and T(3) augmentation for participants who experienced unsatisfactory results with two prior medication treatments were modest and did not differ significantly. The lower side effect burden and ease of use of T(3) augmentation suggest that it has slight advantages over lithium augmentation for depressed patients who have experienced several failed medication trials.     

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.     

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.     

Poor response to antidepressant medication of patients with depression accompanied by somatic symptomatology in the STAR*D Study

Studies suggest that the gender difference in the prevalence of depression results because women exhibit higher prevalence than men of a depressive phenotype associated with somatic symptoms. Because this phenotype has been found to be based in psychosocial forces, it may not respond well to antidepressant medication. In this study, data from the STAR*D Study were analyzed to compare remission rates in response to an SSRI and to several other antidepressants of patients exhibiting depression accompanied by somatic symptomatology versus other patients. Scores on the Clinician Rated Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology were used to measure clinical remission in response to medication. Patients exhibiting depression accompanied by somatic symptomatology exhibited less remission to the SSRI Citalopram (31% versus 43%) and to the various medications administered in level 3 (14% versus 25%) than did other patients in STAR*D. The low rates of remission in response to medication of patients exhibiting somatic symptomatology were not due to the greater proportion of women, nor to the greater proportion of patients exhibiting anxiety disorders, among patients exhibiting somatic symptomatology. Remission rates were found to be related to exhibiting somatic symptomatology not to exhibiting nonsomatic symptoms.     

Income and attrition in the treatment of depression: a STAR*D report

Background: Attrition, or dropping out of treatment, remains a major issue in the care of depressed outpatients. Whether different factors are associated with attrition for different socioeconomic groups is not known. This report assessed whether attrition rates and predictors of attrition differed among depressed outpatients with different income levels. Methods: Outpatients with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder treated for up to 14 weeks with citalopram in the first step of the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study were divided by household incomes of <$20,000, $20,000–<$40,000, and ≥$40,000. Attrition rates and sociodemographic and clinical correlates of attrition were identified for each group. Results: Regardless of income level, remission rates were lower for participants who dropped out of treatment. Attrition rates increased as income decreased. For all income levels, younger age was independently associated with attrition. For the lowest income level, less education, better mental health functioning, being on public insurance, and having more concurrent Axis I conditions were associated with a greater likelihood of attrition. For the middle income group, less education, better mental health functioning, being Black or of another non‐White race, and treatment in a psychiatric versus primary‐care setting predicted greater attrition. For the highest income group, being Hispanic, having a family history of drug abuse, and melancholic features predicted attrition. Atypical symptom features (middle income group) and recurrent depression (highest income group) were associated with retention. Conclusions: Efforts to retain patients in antidepressant treatment should focus especially on less educated patients with lower household incomes and younger patients. Depression and Anxiety, 2009. Published 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Release bias in accessing medical records in clinical trials: a STAR*D report

Clinical trials often require subjects to sign medical record releases to allow investigators to measure treatment fidelity, off‐protocol care use, and care costs. Little is known, however, if limiting samples to those willing to sign releases impacts external validity. Data came from outpatients with non‐psychotic major depressive disorder who enrolled in the multisite Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study. Differences between those who signed (n = 3116) and who did not sign (n = 925) releases were assessed using logistic regression and two‐part, three‐level log‐transformed regression models, corrected for site clustering and repeated measures. Patients who released records tended to believe care was helpful, were younger, and married. However, release status had little material or consistent associations with patient health outcomes or use of care. With appropriate adjustments to data, requiring patient medical records may pose only minimal challenges to external validity in cost‐outcome studies. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Predictors of attrition during initial (citalopram) treatment for depression: a STAR*D report

OBJECTIVE: Premature attrition from treatment may lead to worse outcomes and compromise the integrity of clinical trials in major depressive disorder. The purpose of this study was to identify the pretreatment predictors of attrition during acute treatment with citalopram in a large, "real world" clinical trial. METHOD: A total of 4,041 adult outpatients with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder were enrolled in treatment with citalopram for up to 14 weeks. Attrition was defined as "immediate" (patients who attended a baseline visit only) or "later" (patients who attended at least one postbaseline visit but who dropped out before the 12-week visit). RESULTS: Overall, 26% of enrolled patients dropped out of the acute phase treatment for nonmedical reasons. Of these, 34% dropped out immediately, 59% dropped out by week 12, and 7% dropped out after 12 weeks. Immediate attrition was associated with younger age, less education, and higher perceived mental health functioning. Attrition later in treatment was associated with younger age, less education, and African American race. Experience with more than one episode of depression was associated with less attrition. CONCLUSIONS: In clinical trials and clinical practice, several time points in treatment may provide opportunities to engage and encourage populations at higher risk for attrition and populations with high-risk presentation of illness. Additionally, more aggressive forms of treatment implemented earlier in the treatment process in order to increase the likelihood of more rapid efficacy may reduce dropout rates.     

Pain in depression: STAR*D study findings

BACKGROUND: Pain complaints commonly accompany major depressive disorder (MDD). However, whether patients with MDD and pain complaints differ from those without pain complaints is not well studied. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare depressed outpatients with and those without current pain complaints in terms of sociodemographic, clinical, and presenting symptom features. METHODS: The baseline clinical and sociodemographic data of a large representative outpatient sample with nonpsychotic MDD (n=3745) enrolled in the STAR*D (Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression) study were collected. Baseline information on pain complaints was based on Item No. 25 (somatic pain) of the 30-item Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Clinician Rating (IDS-C(30)). RESULTS: After adjusting for sex, depression severity (IDS-C(30) less Item No. 25), and general medical comorbidities (as measured by the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale total score), we found clinically meaningful differences between patients with and those without pain complaints. Younger, African American, Hispanic, and less educated patients were more likely to report pain complaints. In addition, those with pain complaints were more likely to report anxious features with irritable mood, sympathetic nervous system arousal, and gastrointestinal problems as well as poorer quality of life. Neither a more chronic course of illness nor suicidal ideation was associated with pain. CONCLUSIONS: Pain complaints are common among outpatients with MDD and are associated with certain symptom features and poorer quality of life. However, the findings of this study suggest that depression accompanied by pain complaints does not increase the clinical psychiatric burden or chronicity of depression.     

Sex differences in response to citalopram: a STAR*D report

Objective

Controversy exists as to whether women with depression respond better to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) than men. The purpose of this report was to determine whether men and women differ in their responses to treatment with the SSRI citalopram using a large sample of real world patients from primary and psychiatric specialty care settings.

Method

As part of the sequenced treatment alternatives to relieve depression (STAR∗D) study, 2876 participants were treated with citalopram for up to 12-14 weeks. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics and outcomes were gathered and compared between men and women.

Results

At baseline, women were younger, had more severe depressive symptoms and were more likely to have: early onset; previous suicide attempt(s); a family history of depression, alcohol abuse or drug abuse; atypical symptom features; and one or more of several concurrent psychiatric disorders. Despite greater baseline severity and more Axis I comorbidities, women were more likely to reach remission and response with citalopram than men.

Conclusions

Women have a better response to the SSRI citalopram than men, which may be due to sex-specific biological differences particularly in serotonergic systems.     

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.     

Tranylcypromine vs. lamotrigine in the treatment of refractory bipolar depression: a failed but clinically useful study

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of tranylcypromine vs. lamotrigine in bipolar depression not responding to conventional antidepressants. METHOD: Bipolar depressed patients received open randomized treatment with tranylcypromine or lamotrigine as add-on to a mood stabilizer during 10 weeks. In a second treatment phase, non-responding patients could receive the opposite drug. Outcome criteria were response (measured with CGI-BP and IDS-C), switch into mania, and completion of the study. RESULTS: Only 20 of 70 planned patients were randomized, due to problems with recruitment, and 19 patients received any medication. During the first treatment phase 5/8 patients (62.5%) responded to tranylcypromine without switch into mania, compared with 4/11 patients (36.4%) on lamotrigine with two switches (statistically not significant). Over both treatment phases, 8/10 patients (80%) receiving tranylcypromine completed the study vs. 5/13 (38.5%) on lamotrigine (likelihood 0.02). CONCLUSION: There still appears to be a role for tranylcypromine in the treatment of refractory bipolar depression. Larger controlled studies are demanded.     

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.     

Methods of testing feasibility for sequenced treatment alternatives to relieve depression (STAR*D)

In large multi-site trials, a feasibility or pilot study can be crucial to test the functionality of all aspects of conducting the study prior to the initiation of the formal study. A feasibility trial was conducted for the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) Project, a multi-site, prospective, sequentially randomized, clinical trial of outpatients with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder. From 14 December 2000 to 8 June 2001, 42 patients were screened for enrollment into the STAR*D Feasibility Trial. Twenty-four patients who were eligible and consented to participate were treated with citalopram for up to 12 weeks. During the course of this trial, issues were raised that resulted in modifications to the study procedures. Modifications made as a result of this trial affected four domains: (1) communication, (2) patient and provider burden, (3) data collection forms, and (4) recruitment and retention of subjects. This paper describes what was learned during the STAR*D Feasibility Trial so researchers planning to conduct similar trials can learn the practical issues related to conducting such a research project. While the information gathered was useful, it did delay the initiation of the formal trial. We view this cost as an investment in the development of overall study procedures that should lead to a stronger study.