Acute-phase Treatment Of Depression Research Articles

Which patients benefit from adding short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy to antidepressants in the treatment of depression? A systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data.

Adding short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy (STPP) to antidepressants increases treatment efficacy, but it is unclear which patients benefit specifically. This study examined efficacy moderators of combined treatment (STPP + antidepressants) v. antidepressants for adults with depression. For this systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017056029), we searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase.com, and the Cochrane Library from inception to 1 January 2022. We included randomized clinical trials comparing combined treatment (antidepressants + individual outpatient STPP) v. antidepressants in the acute-phase treatment of depression in adults. Individual participant data were requested and analyzed combinedly using mixed-effects models (adding Cochrane risk of bias items as covariates) and an exploratory machine learning technique. The primary outcome was post-treatment depression symptom level. Data were obtained for all seven trials identified (100%, n = 482, combined: n = 238, antidepressants: n = 244). Adding STPP to antidepressants was more efficacious for patients with high rather than low baseline depression levels [B = -0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.61 to -0.37, p < 0.0001] and for patients with a depressive episode duration of >2 years rather than <1 year (B = -0.68, 95% CI -1.31 to -0.05, p = 0.03) and than 1-2 years (B = -0.86, 95% CI -1.66 to -0.06, p = 0.04). Heterogeneity was low. Effects were replicated in analyses controlling for risk of bias. To our knowledge, this is the first study that examines moderators across trials assessing the addition of STPP to antidepressants. These findings need validation but suggest that depression severity and episode duration are factors to consider when adding STPP to antidepressants and might contribute to personalizing treatment selection for depression.

The Role of Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor in Mediating the Action of Antidepressants in the Treatment of Depression

According to the neurotrophic hypothesis of depression proposed two decades ago, the most important role in the pathogenesis of depressive disorders is played by abnormalities in the maintenance of neuronal plasticity regulated by brain neurotrophic factor (BDNF). Although the decline in BDNF activity in depression is now widely documented, it remains unclear whether it is a factor contributing to the onset of depression, or a consequence of the chronic course of the disease. In preclinical studies, it was found that exogenous BDNF infusions causes antidepressant-like effects, prevents the depressogenic effects of chronic stress and increases cell survival in the hippocampus and the prefrontal cortex, but the mechanisms mediating these effects have not been fully studied. The results of molecular genetic studies confirmed that BDNF is essential in mediating the therapeutic effect of antidepressants, while the role of genetic polymorphisms in predicting antidepressant efficacy in depression remains uncertain. The mechanisms of action of monoaminergic antidepressants are related to their effect on the expression of BDNF and its TrkB receptor, however, apparently, the effect size varies for different drugs. Peripheral BDNF levels increase during treatment with antidepressants, and this increase is clearly observed only during the acute phase treatment of depression, but not during the period of maintenance therapy. The serum level of BDNF is a potentially useful marker for diagnosing depression and prediction of a therapeutic response.

Waiting list may be a nocebo condition in psychotherapy trials: a contribution from network meta‐analysis

Various control conditions have been employed in psychotherapy trials, but there is growing suspicion that they may lead to different effect size estimates. The present study aims to examine the differences among control conditions including waiting list (WL), no treatment (NT) and psychological placebo (PP). We comprehensively searched for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing cognitive-behaviour therapies (CBT) against various control conditions in the acute phase treatment of depression, and applied network meta-analysis (NMA) to combine all direct and indirect comparisons among the treatment and control arms. We identified 49 RCTs (2730 participants) comparing WL, NT, PP and CBT. This network of evidence was consistent, and the effect size estimates for CBT were substantively different depending on the control condition. The odds ratio of response for NT over WL was statistically significant at 2.9 (95% CI: 1.3-5.7). However, the quality of evidence, including publication bias, was less than ideal and none of the preplanned sensitivity analyses limiting to high-quality studies could be conducted, while findings of significant differences did not persist in post hoc sensitivity analyses trying to adjust for publication bias. There may be important differences in control conditions currently used in psychotherapy trials.

Is switching antidepressants following early nonresponse more beneficial in acute-phase treatment of depression?: A randomized open-label trial

Treatment guidelines for major depressive disorder (MDD) recommend a continuous use of antidepressants for several weeks, while recent meta-analyses indicate that antidepressant efficacy starts to appear within 2 weeks and early treatment nonresponse is a predictor of subsequent nonresponse. We prospectively compared 8-week outcomes between switching antidepressants and maintaining the same antidepressant in early nonresponders, to generate a hypothesis on possible benefits of early switching strategy. Patients with MDD without any treatment history for the current episode were included. When subjects failed to show an early response (i.e., ≥20% improvement in the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS)) to the initial treatment with sertraline 50mg at week 2, they were randomly divided into two groups; in the Continuing group, sertraline was titrated at 50-100mg, whereas sertraline was switched to paroxetine 20-40 mg in the Switching group. A primary outcome measure was a response rate (i.e., ≥50% improvement in the MADRS) at week 8. Among 132 subjects, 41 subjects showed early nonresponse. The Switching group (n=20) showed a higher rate of responders than the Continuing group (n=21) (75% vs. 19%: p=0.002). Further, the Switching group was also superior in the rate of remitters (total score of ≤10 in the MADRS) (60% vs. 14%: p=0.004) and continuous changes in the MADRS (19.0 vs. 7.5: p<0.001). Our preliminary findings suggest that patients with MDD who fail to show early response to an initial antidepressant may derive benefits from the early switching antidepressants in the acute-phase treatment of depression.

Fluvoxamine versus other anti-depressive agents for depression.

Fluvoxamine, one of the oldest selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), is prescribed to patients with major depression in many countries. Several studies have previously reviewed the efficacy and tolerability of fluvoxamine for the treatment of major depression. However, these reviews are now outdated. Our objective is to evaluate the effectiveness, tolerability and side effect profile of fluvoxamine for major depression in comparison with other anti-depressive agents, including tricyclics (TCAs), heterocyclics, other SSRIs, SNRIs, other newer agents and other conventional psychotropic drugs. We searched the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register. Trial databases and ongoing trial registers in North America, Europe, Japan and Australia, were handsearched for randomised controlled trials. We checked reference lists of the articles included in the review, previous systematic reviews and major textbooks of affective disorder for published reports and citations of unpublished research. The date of last search was 31 August 2008. We included all randomised controlled trials, published in any language, that compared fluvoxamine with any other active antidepressants in the acute phase treatment of major depression. Two independent review authors inspected citations and abstracts, obtained papers, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We analysed dichotomous data using odds ratios (ORs) and continuous data using the standardised mean difference (SMD). A random effects model was used to combine studies. A total of 54 randomised controlled trials (n = 5122) were included. No strong evidence was found to indicate that fluvoxamine was either superior or inferior to other antidepressants regarding response, remission and tolerability. However, differing side effect profiles were evident, especially with regard to gastrointestinal side effects of fluvoxamine when compared to other antidepressants. For example, fluvoxamine was generally associated with a higher incidence of vomiting/nausea (versus imipramine, OR 2.23, CI 1.59 to 3.14; versus clomipramine, OR 2.13, CI 1.06 to 4.27; versus amitriptyline, OR 2.86, CI 1.31 to 2.63). We found no strong evidence that fluvoxamine was either superior or inferior to any other antidepressants in terms of efficacy and tolerability in the acute phase treatment of depression. However, differing side effect profiles were evident. Based on these findings, we conclude that clinicians should focus on practical or clinically relevant considerations, including these differences in side effect profiles.

Safety Reporting and Adverse-Event Profile of Mirtazapine Described in Randomized Controlled Trials in Comparison with Other Classes of Antidepressants in the Acute-Phase Treatment of Adults with Depression

Mirtazapine has a unique mechanism of antidepressant action, and thus is thought to have a different profile of adverse events from that of other antidepressants. To present a methodologically rigorous systematic review of the adverse event profile of mirtazapine and point to possible problems with safety reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the acute-phase treatment of major depression in adults with mirtazapine in comparison with other types of antidepressant. The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register was electronically searched using the following search terms: 'depress*', 'dysthymi*', 'adjustment disorder*', 'mood disorder*', 'affective disorder', 'affective symptoms' and 'mirtazapine'. Pharmaceutical companies and experts in this field were contacted, and the reference lists of the relevant RCTs were checked, for additional data. No language restriction was imposed. Two authors independently assessed the quality of trials for inclusion in the review. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. Two authors independently extracted data on adverse events. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. The adequacy of safety reporting was assessed by one author. Regarding the adequacy of safety reporting, the qualitative and quantitative parameters of safety reporting were determined. Regression analyses were conducted to assess characteristics of trials influencing safety reporting. The primary and secondary outcomes in the systematic review of the adverse events associated with mirtazapine were defined as the proportion of patients having each of 43 adverse events listed in the modified version of the WHO Adverse Reaction Terminology, and the proportion of patients experiencing at least one adverse event, respectively. Meta-analyses were conducted for these outcomes. Twenty-five RCTs involving 4842 patients were identified as meeting our inclusion criteria. With regard to safety reporting, only two trials and no trials were rated as 'adequate' in terms of the reporting of clinical adverse events and laboratory-determined toxicity, respectively. The proportion of text in the results sections of the study reports devoted to safety reporting was a mean of 22%. No associations were observed between the adequacy of safety reporting and any characteristics of the trials; however, sample size over 100 participants in total and over 50 subjects in a study arm, double blindness and sponsorship by the company marketing mirtazapine were significantly associated with a greater number of reported adverse events in mirtazapine recipients. In terms of individual adverse events, mirtazapine was significantly less likely to cause hypertension or tachycardia (risk ratio [RR] 0.51) and tremor (RR 0.43) than tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs). In comparison with selective serotonin uptake inhibitors (SSRIs), mirtazapine was significantly more likely to cause weight gain or increased appetite (RR 3.68), increased salivation (RR 3.66), somnolence (RR 1.62) and fatigue (RR 1.45), but less likely to cause flatulence (RR 0.26), sweating (RR 0.28), sexual dysfunction (RR 0.34), tremor (RR 0.37), nausea or vomiting (RR 0.40), sleep disturbance (RR 0.55) and diarrhoea (RR 0.61). In comparison with the serotonin-noradrenaline (norepinephrine) reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) venlafaxine, mirtazapine was significantly more likely to cause fatigue (RR 2.02), but less likely to cause sleep disturbance (RR 0.03), sweating (RR 0.03) and constipation (RR 0.25). Relative to trazodone, mirtazapine was significantly more likely to cause weight gain or increased appetite (RR 4.00). Approximately 70% of patients treated with mirtazapine experienced at least one adverse event, with no significant difference in comparison with other antidepressants. The study confirmed the paucity of adequate safety reporting in trials comparing mirtazapine with other types of antidepressant in the acute-phase treatment of depression in adults. Based on the available evidence, mirtazapine appears to have a unique adverse-event profile. Using these findings, clinicians can inform their patients, not only of the simple frequency of adverse events with mirtazapine, but also of the relative difference in the frequency of adverse events in comparison with that of other antidepressants, to aid pragmatic clinical decisions.

Accelerating response to antidepressant treatment in depression: A review and clinical suggestions

The primary objective of this article is to review the literature regarding the speed of response to antidepressant drugs and potential strategies to accelerate the antidepressant response in new antidepressant-free patients with depression. Based on these data, we try to propose both an effective and safe antidepressant treatment strategy to alleviate depressive symptoms at the earliest opportunity. Data were identified by searches of Medline (1966 to September 2009) and references from relevant articles and books. Search terms included depression, antidepressant, predictor, response, onset, acceleration, and augmentation. As our focus was on the acute phase treatment of depression, articles relevant to treatment-resistant depression were excluded. Only articles written in English or Japanese were consulted. Studies, reviews, and books pertaining to the treatment of depression with a special regard to accelerating therapeutic effects were selected. Most of the available treatment guidelines for major depressive disorders recommend the continuous use of antidepressants for 4 to 8 weeks based on the idea of a delayed onset of response to these drugs. Contrary to this conventional belief, the recent data indicate that antidepressants start to exert their effects within 2 weeks and early non-response could predict a subsequent unfavorable outcome. These findings suggest the need of revisiting the timing of an antidepressant switch for early non-responders, whereby switching could be commenced in as early as 2 weeks.

Metareview on Short-Term Effectiveness and Safety of Antidepressants for Depression: An Evidence-Based Approach to Inform Clinical Practice

To examine the available scientific literature for answers to clinically relevant questions regarding the effectiveness and tolerability of antidepressant drugs (ADs) for the acute phase treatment of depression and to assess the degree to which the literature supports the findings. We used several sources to identify primary reviews: MEDLINE (1955 to April 2006), EMBASE (1980 to April 2006), PsycINFO (1980 to April 2006), and the Cochrane Library 2006 Issue 1. Additional searches were also carried out on the following databases of the National Health Service Centre for Reviews and Dissemination: Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Health Technology Assessment, and Turning Research into Practice. We also searched the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence guidance website. We carried out a metareview of selected high-quality systematic reviews of short-term pharmacologic interventions with ADs for major depression. To assess efficacy, we followed the hierarchy of evidence proposed by the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (Oxford), including only reviews of randomized controlled trials. To assess tolerability, we also considered observational data when randomized evidence was not available. There was randomized evidence that ADs are efficacious in primary care settings and that there may be small, but clinically important, differences in efficacy between ADs. There was no good evidence that an AD combined with an antipsychotic is superior to AD monotherapy in cases of psychotic depression or that intravenous administration leads to more rapid response. There was evidence that monoamine oxidase inhibitors are superior to tricyclic antidepressants, but not to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), in treating atypical depression. There is some evidence of harm related to the use of SSRIs in pregnancy but not to their use when breastfeeding. There is evidence that SSRIs may increase suicidal thoughts, but not actual suicide, in early-phase therapy. We found a substantial body of evidence regarding the benefits and harms of ADs in the treatment of depressive disorder. Nonetheless, there remains considerable residual uncertainty. The evidence is inadequate for generally applicable recommendations; in most cases, the balance between risks and benefits will need to be considered for individual patients. Clinicians should also be guided by the recommendations and warnings issued by drug regulatory authorities.

What moderator characteristics are associated with better prognosis for depression?

A retrospective data analysis was conducted to evaluate the usefulness of baseline characteristics in predicting treatment response to antidepressant medication in 97 outpatients with nonpsychotic major depression treated for up to sixteen weeks with nefazodone. Baseline demographics (gender), illness features (symptom severity, length of illness, length of current episode, number of episodes, age of onset, longitudinal subtype, endogenicity, melancholia, family history of mood disorders), and social features (living status) were evaluated. Response to treatment was defined as a >/= 50% reduction in the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD(17)) score. The results of a survival analysis indicated that patients with shorter histories of illness (< 4 years), a negative family history of depression, and those who were either married or were living with someone were more likely to have a positive outcome during the acute phase treatment of depression. The main findings are consistent with extensive previous literature indicating a better short-term outcome of depression where illness is shorter, where there is no family history, and where there is better social support.

Validity of Sudden Gains in Acute Phase Treatment of Depression.

The authors examined the validity of sudden gains identified with T. Z. Tang and R. J. DeRubeis's (1999) method in 2 clinical data sets that involved treatment of major depressive disorder (N=227). Sudden gains replicated among self- and clinician reports of depressive symptoms and predicted better psychosocial functioning at the acute phase treatment end point, in support of their validity. However, sudden gains occurred with roughly the same moderate frequency in pill placebo and pharmacotherapy with clinical management as in cognitive therapy. Furthermore, sudden gains predicted more depressive symptoms and negative failure attributions in longitudinal follow-up of responders to acute phase cognitive therapy. On the basis of these findings, the authors conceptualize sudden gains as one of several possible patterns of acute phase treatment response.

Low dosage tricyclic antidepressants for depression.

Tricyclic antidepressants are still extensively prescribed worldwide. Evidence for the recommended dosage of tricyclics, however, is poor. To compare the effects and side effects of low dosage tricyclic antidepressants with placebo and with standard dosage tricyclics in acute phase treatment of depression. Electronic search of the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR), incorporating results of group searches of MEDLINE (1966-), EMBASE (1980-), CINAHL (1982-), PsycLIT (1974-), PSYNDEX (1977-) and LILACS (1982-1999) and hand searches of major psychiatric and medical journals. Reference search and SciSearch of the identified studies. Personal contact with authors of significant papers. All randomised controlled trials 1) comparing low dosage TCA (=< 100 mg/d on average at the end of trial) with placebo or 2) comparing low and standard dosages of the same TCA, in acute phase treatment of depressive disorder Two independent reviewers examined eligibility of the identified studies, and extracted data for outcomes at 1 week, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6-8 weeks and later. Main outcome measures were relative risk of response in depression (random effects model), according to the original authors' definition but usually defined as 50% or greater reduction in severity of depression according to the last-observation-carried-forward intention-to-treat method, and relative risks of overall dropouts and dropouts due to side effects. Other outcome measures included worst-case-scenario intention-to-treat analysis of response as defined above (in which dropouts were considered non-responders in the active treatment group and as responders in the comparison group), and standardised weighted mean scores of continuous depression severity scales (usually calculated by last-observation-carried-forward method). 35 studies (2013 participants) compared low dosage tricyclics with placebo, and six studies (551 participants) compared low dosage tricyclics with standard dosage tricyclics. Low dosage tricyclics, mostly between 75 and 100 mg/day, were 1.65 (95% confidence interval 1.36 to 2.0) and 1.47 (1.12 to 1.94) times more likely than placebo to bring about response at 4 weeks and 6-8 weeks, respectively. Standard dosage tricyclics failed, however, to bring about more response but produced more dropouts due to side effects than low dosage tricyclics. Treatment of depression in adults with low dose tricyclics is justified. However, more rigorous studies are needed to definitively establish the relative benefits and harms of varying dosages.