Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale Scores Research Articles

Decreased brain serotonin transporter binding in the euthymic state of bipolar I but not bipolar II disorder: a SPECT study

Previous positron emission tomography studies have demonstrated that serotonin transporter (SERT) binding in the midbrain is decreased in the depressive state of bipolar disorder (BD). The aim of this study was to assess SERT binding in the midbrain of patients in a euthymic state of BD. Twenty-eight healthy controls and 24 patients in a euthymic state of medicated BD were recruited. Euthymic state was defined as Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale scores < 10 and Young Mania Rating Scale scores < 7 within a consecutive eight-week period. Single photon emission computed tomography with the radiotracer (123)I-ADAM was used to measure SERT binding in the midbrain. An equilibrium ratio model was used for data analysis. Specific uptake ratio (SUR), which represents availability of SERT binding in the midbrain, was the primary measurement outcome. The averaged SURs were not different between healthy controls and BD patients in euthymic state (p = 0.27). However, a three-way ANCOVA analysis comparing SURs in healthy controls, bipolar I disorder (BD I) patients, and bipolar II disorder (BD II) patients, covarying education duration and sex, showed that the averaged SURs were significantly lower in BD I than BD II patients and healthy controls (p = 0.042). The decreased SURs in BD I patients were well correlated with duration of illness (R = -0.742, p = 0.014) only. Our findings demonstrate that there is differential biological regulation in BD I and BD II patients after stable treatment, which may support the existence of a dichotomy in BD.

Mental Disorders in Mexican Patients With Multiple Sclerosis

Mental Disorders in Mexican Patients With Multiple Sclerosis

Replication of Scopolamine's Antidepressant Efficacy in Major Depressive Disorder: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial

We previously reported that intravenous (IV) scopolamine administration produced rapid and robust antidepressant effects in a sample consisting of both unipolar and bipolar depressives. The present study aimed to replicate this finding in an independent sample limited to unipolar depressives. Outpatients with major depressive disorder (MDD; n = 23; 22 were included in analyses) participated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial. Subjects were randomized into either a P/S or S/P sequence (P = block of three placebo sessions; S = block of three scopolamine sessions; [4.0 microg/kg IV]). Sessions occurred 3 to 5 days apart, such that time spent in each block lasted 1.5 to 2 weeks and the interval between blocks was 3 to 5 days. The Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) served as the primary outcome measure. Following the initial block, the group receiving scopolamine first (S/P) showed a 32% reduction in MADRS scores (p < .001), which exceeded the corresponding change of 6.5% under placebo (P/S; p = .009), confirming the a-priori hypothesis. Improvement was significant at the first evaluation that followed scopolamine administration (p = .011). In Block 2, the P/S group showed a 53% reduction in MADRS scores (p = .001) following scopolamine versus placebo, whereas the reduction seen in S/P subjects who received scopolamine during Block 1 persisted as they received placebo during Block 2. Scopolamine induced drowsiness, blurred vision, dry mouth, light-headedness, and reduced blood pressure, which were sufficiently well tolerated that no subject dropped out because of side effects. These results replicate previous finding that scopolamine produces a rapid and robust antidepressant response.

Relapse Prevention and Residual Symptoms

Analyses of data from 4 relapse-prevention studies with escitalopram were conducted in order to compare patients with and without residual symptoms with regard to relapse rates and global illness during double-blind, 24-week continuation periods. Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scores and relapse status in 4 studies published from 2005 to 2007, 1 each in major depressive disorder (MDD), generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), were analyzed using mixed-effects model repeated measures as a function of Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) scores on items 1, 3, and 7 at randomization. All studies showed a statistically significant (P < .0001) standardized effect size of about 0.7 for escitalopram versus placebo, with a number needed to treat approximately 4. Patients with residual symptoms (MADRS score > 0) and without residual symptoms (MADRS score = 0) at the start of continuation treatment were defined by how patients scored on 3 core items of the MADRS: depressed mood (observed), inner or psychic tension, and lassitude. At randomization, patients with a residual symptom were globally more ill than patients without such a symptom. Patients who did not continue active treatment worsened, even if they were initially free of a residual symptom. In contrast, patients who continued receiving escitalopram remained stable or further improved, regardless of residual symptoms or diagnosis. No clear picture emerged regarding whether patients with residual symptoms had a higher relapse rate. The presence of residual symptoms is associated with significantly worse overall illness severity in all 4 diagnostic groups and with a higher (although not significantly) risk of relapse for patients with MDD or OCD. The greatest difference in all of the studies was between patients treated with escitalopram (relapse rates ~ 20%) and placebo (relapse rates of about 50%).

Low-dose Transdermal Testosterone Augmentation Therapy Improves Depression Severity in Women

Inadequate response to antidepressant monotherapy in women with major depressive disorder is common. Testosterone administration has been shown to be an effective augmentation therapy in depressed hypogonadal men with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor-resistant depression. However, the effects of low-dose testosterone as augmentation therapy in women with treatment-resistant depression have not been studied. Low-dose transdermal testosterone (300 mcg/day, Intrinsa, Procter and Gamble Pharmaceuticals) was administered to nine women with treatment-resistant depression in an 8 week open-label pilot protocol. There was a statistically significant improvement in mean Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) scores at 2 weeks, sustained through the 8 week period. Two-thirds of subjects achieved a response to the treatment (decrease in MADRS score of 250%) and 33% achieved remission (final MADRS score <10) after 8 weeks of therapy. Mean levels of fatigue, as measured by the MADRS lassitude item, significantly decreased at all time points with a mean 38% decrease from baseline to 8 weeks. These preliminary pilot data suggest that low-dose transdermal testosterone may be an effective augmentation therapy in women with treatment-resistant depression. Further studies are warranted. CNS Spectr. 2009;14(12):688-694

Anxiety and depression symptoms in women with polycystic ovary syndrome compared with controls matched for body mass index

Anxiety and depression are more prevalent in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) than in those without this disorder. Possible confounding effects of overweight and obesity are suggested. The aim was to compare symptoms of anxiety and depression in women with PCOS and controls matched for age, body weight and body mass index (BMI). Women with PCOS (n = 30) and controls (n = 30) were recruited from the community. Persons with ongoing psychotropic medication were excluded. All potential participants underwent gynecological examination to confirm case-control status. Participants completed the self-reported versions of the Brief Scale for Anxiety (BSA-S) and Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS-S). Women with PCOS had a higher BSA-S score compared with controls (median, range: 10.5, 1-24 versus 5.0, 0-28, P < 0.001). They scored higher on the following four individual symptoms: reduced sleep (2.0, 0-5 versus 0, 0-2, P < 0.001), worry (1.5, 0-4 versus 0, 0-6, P = 0.004), phobias (1, 0-4 versus 0, 0-3, P < 0.001), and pain (1, 0-3 versus 0, 0-2, P < 0.001). No statistical difference was demonstrated regarding MADRS-S scores (10.0, 0-27 versus 5.5, 0-24, P = 0.053). Only one of the nine MADRS-S symptoms, reduced sleep, which is also included in the BSA-S, differed between cases and controls. Several anxiety symptoms distinguished women with PCOS from a control group matched on BMI. A better understanding of the symptoms is needed to identify and alleviate anxiety symptoms in this vulnerable group.

Milnacipran et venlafaxine à posologie flexible (jusqu’à 200 mg/j) dans le traitement ambulatoire des épisodes dépressifs majeurs modérés à sévères de l’adulte : étude exploratoire de 24 semaines, randomisée en double insu

Resume L’objectif de cet essai exploratoire multicentrique, randomise, en double insu, etait d’evaluer l’efficacite et la tolerance du milnacipran (MLN) et de la venlafaxine (VLF) administres a posologie flexible (100, 150 ou 200 mg/j en deux prises journalieres) pendant 24 semaines (dont quatre semaines de titration croissante) dans le traitement ambulatoire de l’adulte presentant un episode depressif majeur modere a severe sans risque suicidaire eleve (MINI–DSM IV-TR). Parmi les 195 patients inclus, 134 (68,7 %) ont complete l’essai. Les caracteristiques basales des deux groupes etaient similaires hormis une proportion sensiblement superieure de patients sous MLN presentant un episode severe-DSM IV (63,3 % versus 54,0 % de patients sous VLF). Le score MADRS initial (moyenne : 31,0) a progressivement diminue et de facon superposable dans les deux groupes analyses (n = 177 : 90/MLN, 87/VLF) jusqu’a semaine 24 (S24-OC ; moyenne : –23,1/MLN ; –22,4/VLF). Les taux de reponse MADRS (reduction ≥ 50 %) a S8 et S24-last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) etaient similaires dans les deux groupes (S8 : 64,4 %/MLN, 65,5 %/VLF ; S24 : 70 %/MLN, 77 %/VLF), ainsi que les taux de remission MADRS (score ≤ 10) (S8 : 42,2 %/MLN, 42,5 %/VLF ; S24 : 52,2 %/MLN, 62,1 %/VLF). Dans les deux groupes, les evenements indesirables les plus frequents etaient nausees, sensation vertigineuse, cephalees, hyperhidrose et troubles urogenitaux masculins. MLN et VLF administres a posologie flexible (jusqu’a 200 mg/j) ont montre des profils d’efficacite et de tolerance globalement similaires dans le traitement ambulatoire au long terme de l’episode depressif majeur de l’adulte.

Olanzapine/Fluoxetine Combination for the Treatment of Mixed Depression in Bipolar I Disorder

Mixed depression (ie, co-occurrence of syndromal depression and subsyndromal mania/hypomania) is a common variant of bipolar depression. However, its treatment is much understudied. The aim of the study was to assess the efficacy of the antipsychotic and mood-stabilizing agent olanzapine and the efficacy of the combination of an antidepressant (fluoxetine) and olanzapine (olanzapine/fluoxetine combination; OFC) for the treatment of bipolar I mixed depression. We carried out a post hoc analysis of an 8-week, double-blind trial of adult bipolar I depression treated with placebo (n = 355), olanzapine (5-20 mg/d; n = 351), or OFC (olanzapine/fluoxetine doses: 6/25, 6/50, 12/50 mg/d; n = 82). Studying mixed depression was not a previous goal of the double-blind trial. Subjects in the trial were diagnosed according to DSM-IV and were randomly assigned to treatment during the period June 2000 to December 2001. Mixed depression was defined as the co-occurrence of a major depressive episode and > or = 2 manic/hypomanic symptoms (ie, > or = 2 Young Mania Rating Scale [YMRS] items scoring > or = 2). Response was defined as a > or = 50% reduction in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale score and < 2 concurrent manic/hypomanic symptoms. Switching to mania/hypomania was defined as a YMRS score > or = 15. Frequency of mixed depression was 45.1% in the OFC arm, 49.3% in the olanzapine arm, and 46.8% in the placebo arm (P = .705). The most frequent manic/ hypomanic symptoms of mixed depression were irritability, reduced need for sleep, talkativeness, and racing thoughts. Response rates in patients with nonmixed depression versus patients with mixed depression were the following: in the OFC arm, 48.9% versus 43.2% (OR = 1.24; 95% CI, 0.51-2.98); in the olanzapine arm, 39.9% versus 26.6% (OR = 1.84; 95% CI, 1.17-2.90); in the placebo arm, 27.5% versus 16.3% (OR = 1.94; 95% CI, 1.15-3.28). Response rates in the samples of patients with mixed depression were the following: OFC versus olanzapine, OR = 2.00 (95% CI, 0.96-4.19); OFC versus placebo, OR = 3.91 (95% CI, 1.80-8.49); olanzapine versus placebo, OR = 1.95 (95% CI, 1.14-3.34). It was found that no baseline manic/hypomanic symptom of mixed depression predicted treatment response. A higher number of baseline concurrent manic/hypomanic symptoms predicted a lower response rate in the olanzapine and placebo arms, but not in the OFC arm. The rates of switching were the following: in the OFC arm, 8.5%; in the olanzapine arm, 6.8%; and in the placebo arm, 7.9% (P = .808). The rates of dropouts in patients with mixed depression versus patients with nonmixed depression were not significantly different within any of the treatment arms. The rates of dropouts in the samples of patients with mixed depression were the following: in the OFC arm, 29.7%; in the olanzapine arm, 53.8%; and in the placebo arm, 59.6% (olanzapine vs OFC: OR = 2.66; 95% CI, 1.23-5.75; placebo vs OFC: OR = 3.48; 95% CI, 1.61-7.54; placebo vs olanzapine: OR = 1.30; 95% CI, 0.84-2.01). Olanzapine/fluoxetine combination may be an effective treatment for bipolar I mixed depression. Statistically, the efficacy of OFC was not significantly different from that of olanzapine, but inspection of the 95% CI showed a trend in favor of a possible superiority of OFC. Supporting the study findings are the similar efficacy of OFC in bipolar mixed depression independent of the number of concurrent manic/hypomanic symptoms, a lower dropout rate, and a similarly low switching rate compared to olanzapine. Contrary to other current limited evidence, an antidepressant (fluoxetine) showed efficacy and did not worsen bipolar mixed depression if combined with a mood-stabilizing agent (olanzapine).

Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor and Initial Antidepressant Response to anN-Methyl-D-Aspartate Antagonist

A model has been proposed to explain the pathophysiology of mood disorders based on decreased neurotrophin levels during mood episodes; treatment with antidepressants and mood stabilizers is associated with clinical improvement. This study investigated whether changes in brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) levels are associated with the initial antidepressant effects of ketamine, a high-affinity N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) antagonist. Twenty-three subjects aged 18 to 65 years with DSM-IV major depressive disorder (treatment resistant) participated in this study, which was conducted between October 2006 and May 2008. The subjects were given an open-label intravenous infusion of ketamine hydrochloride (0.5 mg/kg) and rated using various depression scales at baseline and at 40, 80, 120, and 230 minutes postinfusion. The primary outcome measure was the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale score. BDNF levels were obtained at the same time points as depression rating scale scores. Despite a significant (P <. 001) improvement in MADRS scores after subjects received ketamine treatment, no changes in BDNF levels were observed in subjects after they received ketamine compared to baseline. Also, no association was found between antidepressant response and BDNF levels. This study demonstrates that ketamine's rapid initial antidepressant effects are not mediated by BDNF. Further studies are necessary to shed light on the neurobiological basis of these effects. clinicaltrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00024635 and NCT00088699.

Metabolic Assessment of Aripiprazole as Adjunctive Therapy in Major Depressive Disorder

In 2 identical multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, an 8-week prospective treatment phase to ensure inadequate response to standard antidepressants was followed with 6 weeks of aripiprazole (2-20 mg/d) or placebo, plus a standard antidepressant. This pooled analysis involving 737 patients across the 2 studies evaluated the metabolic effects of adjunctive aripiprazole in patients with major depressive disorder. Outcomes included mean change from end of prospective treatment phase to endpoint in body weight, waist circumference, fasting levels of total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides (TG), fasting plasma glucose, and glycosylated hemoglobin (hemoglobin A1C). Logistic regression determined whether baseline variables were associated with weight gain or whether weight change was associated with clinical outcome. Statistically significant increases occurred in mean body weight (adjunctive aripiprazole, +1.73 kg, vs adjunctive placebo, +0.38 kg; P < 0.001). Significantly more subjects receiving adjunctive aripiprazole had clinically relevant (> or = 7%) weight gain versus placebo (5.2% vs 0.6%; P < 0.001). More patients treated with adjunctive aripiprazole shifted body mass index category group from normal to overweight and from overweight to obese than those treated with adjunctive placebo. Body mass index, sex, age, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale score, fasting TG, fasting glucose, and standard antidepressants were not clinically meaningful predictors of weight gain with adjunctive aripiprazole, and change in weight had no correlation with clinical outcome. Adjunctive aripiprazole produced no significant changes versus placebo in mean waist circumference, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, TG, fasting plasma glucose, or hemoglobin A1C. Also, there was no apparent change in the incidence of National Cholesterol Education Program-defined abnormal metabolic measures after treatment with aripiprazole.

Med Check

Med Check

Olanzapine and fluoxetine combination therapy for treatment-resistant depression: review of efficacy, safety, and study design issues

Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is a common occurrence in clinical practice. Up to 30% of patients with major depression do not respond to conventional antidepressant treatment, while a significantly greater number of patients experience only partial symptom reduction. Numerous strategies may be applied by the practicing clinician to overcome limitations in the effectiveness of antidepressant monotherapy, including combining drug treatment with evidence-supported psychotherapies, combining antidepressants (combination pharmacotherapy), and combining antidepressants with other non-antidepressant psychotropic medications (augmentation treatment). One such augmentation strategy, the combination of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, fluoxetine (FLX), with the atypical antipsychotic drug, olanzapine (OLZ), is supported by the results of four randomized, double-blind, acute phase studies of patients who had responded inadequately to antidepressant monotherapy. In each study, the FLX/OLZ combination caused rapid reduction in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating scale scores, with two of the four studies showing significantly greater improvement than antidepressant monotherapy at study endpoint. Effects of the FLX/OLZ combination were strongest in cases where failure to respond to two antidepressants prior to randomization was established during the current depressive episode. The FLX/OLZ combination was well-tolerated; however, body weight gain and increases in prolactin were greater than that of the antidepressant monotherapy groups, and were comparable to that of OLZ monotherapy. While effective during acute-phase treatment, questions remain regarding the long-term efficacy and safety of FLX/OLZ relative to antidepressant monotherapy and other combination strategies. Efforts aimed at determining the placement of FLX/OLZ among the available options for addressing TRD are limited by lack of comparison and sequential treatment studies. Important aspects of study design and directions for future research are discussed.

The Kava Anxiety Depression Spectrum Study (KADSS): A randomized, placebo-controlled, cross-over trial using an aqueous extract of Piper methysticum

Rationale: Piper methysticum (Kava) has been withdrawn in European, British, and Canadian markets due to concerns over hepatotoxic reactions. The WHO recently recommended research into “aqueous” extracts of Kava. Objective: The objective of this study was to conduct the first documented human clinical trial assessing the anxiolytic and antidepressant efficacy of an aqueous extract of Kava. Design and participants: The Kava Anxiety Depression Spectrum Study was a 3-week placebo-controlled, double-blind crossover trial that recruited 60 adult participants with 1 month or more of elevated generalized anxiety. Five Kava tablets per day were prescribed containing 250 mg of kavalactones/day. Results: The aqueous extract of Kava reduced participants' Hamilton Anxiety Scale score in the first controlled phase by −9.9 (CI = 7.1, 12.7) vs. −0.8 (CI = −2.7, 4.3) for placebo and in the second controlled phase by −10.3 (CI = 5.8, 14.7) vs. +3.3 (CI = −6.8, 0.2). The pooled effect of Kava vs. placebo across phases was highly significant (p < 0.0001), with a substantial effect size (d = 2.24, η² [sub]p[sub] = 0.428). Pooled analyses also revealed highly significant relative reductions in Beck Anxiety Inventory and Montgomery–Asberg Depression Rating Scale scores. The aqueous extract was found to be safe, with no serious adverse effects and no clinical hepatotoxicity. Conclusions: The aqueous Kava preparation produced significant anxiolytic and antidepressant activity and raised no safety concerns at the dose and duration studied. Kava appears equally effective in cases where anxiety is accompanied by depression. This should encourage further study and consideration of globally reintroducing aqueous rootstock extracts of Kava for the management of anxiety.

Is DSM-IV Bereavement Exclusion for Major Depressive Episode Relevant to Severity and Pattern of Symptoms?

To assess the DSM-IV major depressive episode (MDE) bereavement exclusion criterion by comparing severity and pattern of symptoms in bereavement-excluded individuals satisfying all other DSM-IV MDE criteria to these same variables in MDE controls. A case-control, cross-sectional study of self-referred individuals seeking treatment for depressive symptoms was conducted. A total of 17,988 subjects met DSM-IV MDE symptom criteria. Of these, 1,521 individuals (8.5%) met all MDE criteria except the bereavement exclusion. They were matched by age, gender, marital status, and educational level with 1,521 MDE controls. Among the MDE controls, 292 had a recent bereavement and 1,229 did not. Severity of depression was measured by the number of MDE symptoms and the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score. Symptom cues of the bereavement-exclusion criterion were analyzed. The study was conducted between September 2003 and May 2004. Bereavement-excluded subjects were more severely depressed than MDE controls without bereavement and similar to MDE controls with bereavement. Two symptom cues, suicidal ideation and worthlessness, and the majority of other depressive symptoms were more pronounced in bereavement-excluded individuals than in MDE controls. Symptom cues of the DSM-IV MDE bereavement exclusion criterion should be modified since they could result in patients failing to be correctly diagnosed and treated.

Escitalopram Versus SNRI Antidepressants in the Acute Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder: Integrative Analysis of Four Double-Blind, Randomized Clinical Trials

Recent data suggest that escitalopram may be more effective in severe depression than other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Individual patient data from four randomized, double-blind comparative trials of escitalopram versus a serotonin/norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) (two trials with duloxetine and two with venlafaxine extended release) in outpatients (18-85 years of age) with moderate-to-severe major depressive disorder were pooled. The primary efficacy parameter in all four trials was mean change in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score. Significantly fewer escitalopram (82/524) than SNRI (114/527) patients prematurely withdrew from treatment due to all causes (15.6% vs. 21.6%, Fisher Exact: P=.014) and adverse events (5.3% vs. 12.0%, Fisher Exact: P<.0001). Mean reduction in MADRS score from baseline to Week 8 was significantly greater for the escitalopram group versus the SNRI group using the last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach [mean treatment difference at Week 8 of 1.7 points (P<.01)]. Similar results were observed in the severely depressed (baseline MADRS score >or= 30) patient subset (mean treatment difference at Week 8 of 2.9 points [P<.001, LOCF]). Observed cases analyses yielded no significant differences in efficacy parameters. This pooled analysis indicates that escitalopram is at least as effective as the SNRIs (venlafaxine XR and duloxetine), even in severe depression, and escitalopram treatment was better tolerated.

The Kava Anxiety Depression Spectrum Study (KADSS): a randomized, placebo-controlled crossover trial using an aqueous extract of Piper methysticum

Piper methysticum (Kava) has been withdrawn in European, British, and Canadian markets due to concerns over hepatotoxic reactions. The WHO recently recommended research into "aqueous" extracts of Kava. The objective of this study was to conduct the first documented human clinical trial assessing the anxiolytic and antidepressant efficacy of an aqueous extract of Kava. The Kava Anxiety Depression Spectrum Study was a 3-week placebo-controlled, double-blind crossover trial that recruited 60 adult participants with 1 month or more of elevated generalized anxiety. Five Kava tablets per day were prescribed containing 250 mg of kavalactones/day. The aqueous extract of Kava reduced participants' Hamilton Anxiety Scale score in the first controlled phase by -9.9 (CI = 7.1, 12.7) vs. -0.8 (CI = -2.7, 4.3) for placebo and in the second controlled phase by -10.3 (CI = 5.8, 14.7) vs. +3.3 (CI = -6.8, 0.2). The pooled effect of Kava vs. placebo across phases was highly significant (p < 0.0001), with a substantial effect size (d = 2.24, eta(2)(p)). Pooled analyses also revealed highly significant relative reductions in Beck Anxiety Inventory and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale scores. The aqueous extract was found to be safe, with no serious adverse effects and no clinical hepatotoxicity. The aqueous Kava preparation produced significant anxiolytic and antidepressant activity and raised no safety concerns at the dose and duration studied. Kava appears equally effective in cases where anxiety is accompanied by depression. This should encourage further study and consideration of globally reintroducing aqueous rootstock extracts of Kava for the management of anxiety.

Remission, response without remission, and nonresponse in major depressive disorder: impact on functioning

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is associated with significant functional impairment. This post-hoc analysis of data from two randomized trials assessed the impact of response status on functioning in MDD. Patients with at least one historical treatment failure followed by an inadequate response after 8 weeks of prospective open-label treatment with escitalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine-CR, sertraline, or venlafaxine-XR plus single-blind placebo were randomized to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with adjunctive placebo or adjunctive aripiprazole. At the end of double-blind treatment, patients were defined as: in remission [>or=50% reduction in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score with MADRS <or=10]; with a response without remission (>or=50% reduction in MADRS with MADRS >10); or with a nonresponse (all others). Functional status was assessed with the Sheehan Disability Scale. Of the 679 patients, 144 were in remission, 44 had a response without remission, and 491 had a nonresponse. Mean improvements in the Sheehan Disability Scale total and item scores were significantly greater in patients in remission versus those with a response without remission (P<0.02) as well as nonresponse (P<0.001). Structural Equation Modeling found that efficacy (Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression scores) did not significantly correlate with functioning in this study. In conclusion, MDD patients achieving symptomatic remission experience greater functional improvements than those respond without remission. Functioning may be a distinctly different outcome from symptom reduction. Treatments focused on producing high remission rates may improve patient functioning over and above that seen with patients who only achieve response.

Extended-Release Quetiapine as Adjunct to an Antidepressant in Patients With Major Depressive Disorder

This 6-week, randomized, double-blind study evaluated efficacy and safety of adjunctive extended-release (XR) quetiapine in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and an inadequate response to >or= 1 antidepressant. Male or female patients aged 18 to 65 years with DSM-IV-TR MDD were randomly assigned to receive quetiapine XR (150 or 300 mg/day) or placebo adjunctive to continuing antidepressant. Primary endpoint was change from randomization to week 6 in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. Secondary variables included MADRS response (>or= 50% reduction in score from randomization) at weeks 1 and 6, MADRS remission (<or= 8 total score) at week 6, and week 6 change in Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety total scores. Safety was assessed throughout the study. The study was conducted between May 8, 2006, and April 7, 2007. Four hundred ninety-three patients were randomly assigned. Mean change from randomization to week 6 in MADRS score was -15.26 and -14.94 for quetiapine XR 150 mg/day and 300 mg/day, respectively (both p < .01 vs. placebo [-12.21]). Quetiapine XR showed separation from placebo in MADRS score from week 1 (p < .001) onward. The MADRS response rates were 55.4%, 57.8%, and 46.3% for quetiapine XR 150 mg/day (p = .107 vs. placebo), 300 mg/day (p < .05), and placebo, respectively; MADRS remission rates were 36.1% (p < .05 vs. placebo), 31.1% (p = .126), and 23.8% for quetiapine XR 150 mg/day, 300 mg/day, and placebo, respectively. Withdrawal rates due to adverse events were 6.6%, 11.7%, and 3.7% with quetiapine XR 150 mg/day, 300 mg/day, and placebo, respectively. The most common adverse events were dry mouth (20.4%, 35.6%, and 6.8%) and somnolence (16.8%, 23.3%, and 3.1%). Adjunctive quetiapine XR (150 mg/day and 300 mg/day) was effective in patients with MDD who had shown an inadequate response to antidepressant treatment. Significant reduction of depressive symptoms occurred as early as week 1. Findings were consistent with the known safety and tolerability profile of quetiapine. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00351910.

Extended Release Quetiapine Fumarate Monotherapy in Major Depressive Disorder

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of once-daily extended release quetiapine fumarate (quetiapine XR) as monotherapy treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD). This 8-week (6-week active-treatment, randomized phase; 2-week posttreatment drug-discontinuation/tapering phase), multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, placebo- and active-controlled, phase 3 study was conducted between April 2006 and May 2007. In total, 612 patients with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV)-defined MDD were randomly assigned to quetiapine XR 150 mg/day or 300 mg/day, duloxetine 60 mg/day (active control), or placebo. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline to week 6 in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. At week 6, both doses of quetiapine XR (p < .001) and duloxetine (p < .01) significantly reduced mean MADRS total score versus placebo. A significant reduction was seen at week 1 with quetiapine XR 150 mg/day and 300 mg/day versus placebo (p < .01), but not with duloxetine. Response rates (>or= 50% reduction in MADRS total score) at week 6 were significantly higher for both doses of quetiapine XR (p < .01) and duloxetine (p < .05) versus placebo. Remission rates (MADRS score <or= 8) were significantly higher for quetiapine XR 300 mg/day and duloxetine versus placebo (p < .05), but not for quetiapine XR 150 mg/day. Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety, and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness total scores and the proportion of patients with Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scores of 1 or 2 ("much/very much improved") were significantly improved with both doses of quetiapine XR and duloxetine versus placebo. The most common adverse events reported were dry mouth, sedation, and somnolence for quetiapine XR and nausea, headache, dizziness, and dry mouth for duloxetine. Quetiapine XR monotherapy (150 mg/day and 300 mg/day) is effective, with safety and tolerability consistent with the known profile of quetiapine XR, in the treatment of patients with MDD, with onset of symptom improvement demonstrated at week 1. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00321490.

Influence of prefrontal target region on the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with medication-resistant depression: a [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose PET and MRI study

It is currently unknown whether the antidepressant effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) depends on specific characteristics of the stimulated frontal area, such as metabolic changes. We investigated the effect of high-frequency rTMS, administered over the most hypometabolic prefrontal area in depressed patients in a two-site, double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled add-on study. Forty-eight patients with medication-resistant major depression underwent magnetic resonance imaging and [(18)F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) in order to determine a target area for rTMS. After randomization to PET-guided (n = 16), standard (n = 18), or sham rTMS (n = 14) conditions, the patients received 10 sessions of 10-Hz rTMS (1600 pulses/session) at 90% motor threshold. Change from baseline in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) scores did not differ between PET-guided, standard and sham groups at 2-wk end-point. Exploratory comparison of left PET-guided (n = 9), right PET-guided, standard, and sham rTMS revealed significant effects. The highest improvement in MADRS scores was observed with left PET-guided (60 + or - 31%), significantly superior to sham (30 + or - 37%, p = 0.01) and right-guided (31 + or - 33%, p = 0.02) stimulation. Comparison between left PET-guided and standard rTMS (49 + or - 28%) was not significant (p = 0.12). Comparison between stimulation over dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (BA 9-46), stimulation of other areas, and sham rTMS was statistically significant. Stimulation over BA 9-46 region (n = 15) was superior to sham rTMS (p = 0.02). The results do not support the general hypothesis of increased antidepressant effects of high-frequency rTMS with prefrontal hypometabolism-related PET guidance. Nonetheless, whether metabolism and anatomy characteristics of left frontal area underneath the coil might account for an increase or speeding up of rTMS effects needs further investigation.