Escitalopram in seasonal affective disorder: results of an open trial

Second-generation antidepressants for treatment of seasonal affective disorder

BACKGROUND

Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a seasonal pattern of recurrent depressive episodes that is often treated with second-generation antidepressants (SGAs), light therapy, or psychotherapy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of second-generation antidepressants (SGAs) for the treatment of seasonal affective disorder (SAD) in adults in comparison with placebo, light therapy, other SGAs, or psychotherapy.

SEARCH METHODS

This is an update of an earlier review first published in 2011. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library (all years), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO (2011 to January 2020), together with the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR) (all available years), for reports of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We hand searched the reference lists of all included studies and other systematic reviews. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for unpublished/ongoing trials. We ran a separate update search for reports of adverse events in the Ovid databases.  SELECTION CRITERIA: For efficacy we included RCTs of SGAs compared with other SGAs, placebo, light therapy, or psychotherapy in adult participants with SAD. For adverse events we also included non-randomised studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened abstracts and full-text publications against the inclusion criteria. Data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment were conducted individually. We pooled data for meta-analysis where the participant groups were similar, and the studies assessed the same treatments with the same comparator and had similar definitions of outcome measures over a similar duration of treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

In this update we identified no new RCT on the effectiveness of SGAs in SAD patients. We included 2 additional single-arm observational studies that reported on adverse events of SGAs.  For efficacy we included three RCTs of between five and eight weeks' duration with a total of 204 participants. For adverse events we included two RCTs and five observational (non-randomised) studies of five to eight weeks' duration with a total of 249 participants. All participants met the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) criteria for SAD. The average age ranged from 34 to 42 years, and the majority of participants were female (66% to 100%). Results from one trial with 68 participants showed that fluoxetine (20/36) was numerically superior to placebo (11/32) in achieving clinical response; however, the confidence interval (CI) included both a potential benefit as well as no benefit of fluoxetine (risk ratio (RR) 1.62, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.83, very low-certainty evidence). The number of adverse events was similar in both groups (very low-certainty evidence). Two trials involving a total of 136 participants compared fluoxetine versus light therapy. Meta-analysis showed fluoxetine and light therapy to be approximately equal in treating seasonal depression: RR of response 0.98 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.24, low-certainty evidence), RR of remission 0.81 (95% CI 0.39 to 1.71, very low-certainty evidence). The number of adverse events was similar in both groups (low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any eligible study comparing SGA with another SGA or with psychotherapy. Two RCTs and five non-randomised studies reported adverse event data on a total of 249 participants who received bupropion, fluoxetine, escitalopram, duloxetine, nefazodone, reboxetine, light therapy, or placebo. We were only able to obtain crude rates of adverse events, therefore caution is advised regarding interpretation of this information. Between 0% and 100% of participants who received an SGA suffered an adverse event, and between 0% and 25% of participants withdrew from the study due to adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence for the effectiveness of SGAs is limited to one small trial of fluoxetine compared with placebo showing a non-significant effect in favour of fluoxetine, and two small trials comparing fluoxetine against light therapy suggesting equivalence between the two interventions. The lack of available evidence precluded us from drawing any overall conclusions on the use of SGAs for SAD. Further, larger RCTs are required to expand and strengthen the evidence base on this topic, and should also include comparisons with psychotherapy and other SGAs. Data on adverse events were sparse, and a comparative analysis was not possible. The data we obtained on adverse events is therefore not robust, and our confidence in the data is limited. Overall, up to 25% of participants treated with SGAs for SAD withdrew from the study early due to adverse events.

Pharmacotherapy and nutritional supplements for seasonal affective disorders: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

A seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a subtype of unipolar and bipolar major depressive disorders. It is characterized by its annual recurrence of depressive episodes at a particular season, mostly seen in winter and is responsible for 10-20% of the prevalence of major depressive disorders. Some pathophysiological hypotheses, such as the phase delay and the monoamine depletion hypotheses, have been postulated but the exact cause has not been fully unraveled yet. Studies on treatment for SAD in the last decade are lacking. To tackle this chronic disease, attention needs to be drawn to the gaps in this research field.

AREAS COVERED

In this systematic review, the authors give a broad overview of the pharmacological therapy available for SAD. Also, nutritional substances fitting well with the postulated hypotheses are reviewed for the treatment and prevention of SAD. There is a specific focus on the quality of the currently performed studies.

EXPERT OPINION

Light therapy and fluoxetine are the only proven and effective acute treatment options for SAD, while bupropion is the only registered drug for prevention of SAD. This area of research is in dire need of valid large-scale and sufficiently reproducible randomized control trials.

Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD): Role of Lamotrigine Augmentation to Anti-Depressant Medication in Winter Depression

BACKGROUND

Many therapeutic options have been evaluated and tried for seasonal affective disorder (SAD) including bright light therapy (BLT), anti-depressants, beta-blockers and psychotherapy, but the data supporting use of mood-stabilizing agents is just handful in spite of this condition being understood most frequently to be associated with bipolar affective disorder II (BPAD II). So we planned to study role of Lamotrigine (Mood stabilizing agent) in SAD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

30 patients of SAD who were prescribed lamotrigine in addition to antidepressant medications for a minimum of 8 weeks and were assessed for severity using HAM-D were selected retrospectively from the hospital records for this study. HAM-D scores at 2, 4 and 8 weeks were compared to baseline scores.

STATISTICS ANALYSIS

Single tailed t-test was used to study the difference of means to assess the therapeutic response and pre/post analysis of change. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.

RESULTS

Though no significant difference was seen in HAM-D Scores at 2 weeks of treatment compared to baseline, but results were statistically significant at 4 and 8 weeks of treatment with lamotrigine augmentation of antidepressant medications.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that lamotrigine augmentation was found to be effective treatment strategy for managing winter depression phase of Seasonal Affective Disorder.

Seasonal affective disorder: is there light at the end of the tunnel?

Seasonal affective disorder, which is underdiagnosed in the primary care setting, is a mood disorder subtype characterized by episodic major depression that typically develops in winter when daylight hours are short. Patients with SAD experience increased morbidity and decreased quality of life. This article focuses on recognition and management of this condition. Light therapy is the preferred treatment for SAD because it is safe and easy to administer; light therapy may be combined with pharmacologic therapy. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) also has a positive therapeutic effect when combined with light therapy and may help prevent SAD in subsequent seasons.

Bupropion for the treatment of seasonal affective disorder

INTRODUCTION

Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a psychiatric illness with recurring depressive episodes during particular seasons, mostly winter. Bupropion is effective in the preventive treatment of SAD and is probably also effective in the acute treatment of SAD.

AREAS COVERED

This review covers the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of bupropion. The authors also evaluate bupropion's clinical efficacy as well as its safety and tolerability.

EXPERT OPINION

Bupropion is available in an immediate release formulation, as well as a sustained release formulation and an extended release (XR) formulation. The XR formulation is recommended for SAD due to its ease of use and is the only formulation currently used as a therapy. Due to the predictable nature of SAD, the use of bupropion XR is considered a relevant treatment option. Bupropion's efficacy is shown in three trials that started in autumn at a time when SAD symptoms were not yet present although treatment effects were relatively small compared with a placebo. Bupropion was also shown to have efficacy in an open-label study. That being said, in order to reach definitive conclusions about its efficacy with acute treatment of SAD, more placebo-controlled trials are needed.

Second-generation antidepressants for seasonal affective disorder

BACKGROUND

Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a seasonal pattern of recurrent depressive episodes that is often treated with second-generation antidepressants (SGAs), light therapy or psychotherapy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of SGAs for the treatment of SAD in adults in comparison with placebo, light therapy, other SGAs or psychotherapy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neuorosis Review Group's specialised register (CCDANCTR) on the 26 August 2011. The CCDANCTR contains reports of relevant randomised controlled trials from The Cochrane Library (all years), EMBASE (1974 to date), MEDLINE (1950 to date) and PsycINFO (1967 to date). In addition, we searched pharmaceutical industry trials registers via the Internet to identify unpublished trial data. Furthermore, we searched OVID MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-process, EMBASE and PsycINFO to 27July 2011 for publications on adverse effects (including non-randomised studies).

SELECTION CRITERIA

For efficacy we included randomised trials of SGAs compared with other SGAs, placebo, light therapy or psychotherapy in adult participants with SAD. For adverse effects we also included non-randomised studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened abstracts and full-text publications against the inclusion criteria. Data abstraction and risk of bias assessment were conducted by one reviewer and checked for accuracy and completeness by a second. We pooled data for meta-analysis where the participant groups were similar and the studies assessed the same treatments with the same comparator and had similar definitions of outcome measures over a similar duration of treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

For efficacy we included three randomised trials of between five and eight weeks duration with a total of 204 participants. For adverse effects we included two randomised trials and three observational (non-randomised) studies of five to eight weeks duration with a total of 225 participants. Overall, the randomised trials had low-to-moderate risk of bias, and the observational studies had a high risk of bias (due to small size and high attrition). The participants in the studies all met DSM (Diagnostic and Statistics Manual of Mental Disorders) criteria for SAD. The average age was approximately 40 years and 70% of the participants were female.Results from one trial with 68 participants showed that fluoxetine was not significantly more effective than placebo in achieving clinical response (risk ratio (RR) 1.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 2.83). The number of adverse effects were similar between the two groups.We located two trials that contained a total of 136 participants for the comparison fluoxetine versus light therapy. Our meta-analysis of the results of the two trials showed fluoxetine and light therapy to be approximately equal in treating seasonal depression: RR of response 0.98 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.24), RR of remission 0.81 (95% CI 0.39 to 1.71). The number of adverse effects was similar in both groups.Two of the three randomised trials and three non-randomised studies contained adverse effect data on 225 participants who received fluoxetine, escitalopram, duloxetine, reboxetine, light therapy or placebo. We were only able to obtain crude rates of adverse effects, so any interpretation of this needs to be undertaken with caution. Between 22% and 100% of participants who received a SGA suffered an adverse effect and between 15% and 27% of participants withdrew from the studies because of adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence for the effectiveness of SGAs is limited to one small trial of fluoxetine compared with placebo, which shows a non-significant effect in favour of fluoxetine, and two small trials comparing fluoxetine against light therapy, which suggest equivalence between the two interventions. The lack of available evidence precludes the ability to draw any overall conclusions on the use of SGAs for SAD. Further larger RCTs are required to expand and strengthen the evidence base on this topic, and should also include comparisons with psychotherapy and other SGAs.Data on adverse events were sparse, and a comparative analysis was not possible. Therefore the data we obtained on adverse effects is not robust and our confidence in the data is limited. Overall, up to 27% of participants treated with SGAs for SAD withdrew from the studies early due to adverse effects. The overall quality of evidence in this review is very low.

Why do some promising brain-stimulation devices fail the next steps of clinical development?

Interest in techniques of noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) has been growing exponentially in the last decade. Recent studies have shown that some of these techniques induce significant neurophysiological and clinical effects. Although recent results are promising, there are several techniques that have been abandoned despite positive initial results. In this study, we performed a systematic review to identify NIBS methods with promising preliminary clinical results that were not fully developed and adopted into clinical practice, and discuss its clinical, research and device characteristics. We identified five devices (transmeatal cochlear laser stimulation, transcranial micropolarization, transcranial electrostimulation, cranial electric stimulation and stimulation with weak electromagnetic fields) and compared them with two established NIBS devices (transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation) and with well-known drugs used in neuropsychiatry (pramipexole and escitalopram) in order to understand the reasons why they failed to reach clinical practice and further steps of research development. Finally, we also discuss novel NIBS devices that have recently showed promising results: brain ultrasound and transcranial high-frequency random noise stimulation. Our results show that some of the reasons for the failure of NIBS devices with promising clinical findings are the difficulty to disseminate results, lack of controlled studies, duration of research development, mixed results and lack of standardization.

Report of two double-blind randomized placebo-controlled pilot studies of a carbohydrate-rich nutrient mixture for treatment of seasonal affective disorder (SAD)

We investigated a carbohydrate-rich nutrient-drink mix for treatment of seasonal affective disorder (SAD). This mixture may contribute to brain serotonin synthesis, potentially exerting an antidepressant effect and controlling carbohydrate cravings. Two successive double-blind placebo-controlled studies were performed. In Study 1, 18 subjects (50% women; mean age 43 +/- 15 years) with SCID-diagnosed SAD were randomized to 12 days of twice daily carbohydrate beverage (CHO) containing mixed starches, or a placebo beverage (PRO) containing the CHO mix plus casein protein to dampen serotonin synthesis. Following a 2-day washout, subjects were crossed over to the other treatment for 12 days. In Study 2, 32 subjects (63% women; mean age 46 +/- 14 years) with SCID-diagnosed SAD were randomized to 21 days of CHO or PRO. Efficacy in both studies was determined by the first 17 items of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D-28), an appetite questionnaire, and regular weighing. In Study 1, response rates were 50% for both groups. Remission rates favored CHO (50% vs. 38%), as did the decrease in the HAM-D-17 score, but differences were nonsignificant. In Study 2, response rates were 71% for CHO and 76% for PRO, and remission rates were 71% for each group. Both treatment groups experienced significant improvement in HAM-D-17 scores within 1 week of treatment, which continued through the entire study period. Weight change did not differ significantly between treatment groups in either study. The drink mix was well tolerated and treatment adherence was high. Both the active and placebo intervention were effective in alleviating symptoms of SAD. Replication studies in larger samples appear warranted.

Therapeutic effects of escitalopram and reboxetine in seasonal affective disorder: a pooled analysis

The monoaminergic neurotransmitters serotonin and noradrenaline have both been implicated in the pathogenesis of seasonal affective disorder (SAD). However, the differential therapeutic value of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) and selective noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (NARI) in SAD has not been assessed until now. This study compares data from two open-label trials with similar methodology investigating the SSRI escitalopram and the NARI reboxetine. 20 SAD patients were treated with escitalopram (10-20mg) and 15 patients received treatment with reboxetine (fixed dosage: 8mg) over 6 weeks. Ratings included the structured interview guide for the Hamilton depression rating scale, SAD version (SIGH-SAD), the clinical global impression of severity (CGI-S) and improvement (CGI-I) and the UKU side effect rating scale. Treatment led to a significant reduction in SIGH-SAD score, CGI-S and CGI-I after one week in the reboxetine group and after two weeks in the escitalopram group. SIGH-SAD score was significantly lower in the reboxetine group at weeks 1, 2 and 4 but not at the end of the study. The response rate (SIGH-SAD <50% of baseline value) and the remission rate (SIGH-SAD <8) were not significantly different after 6 weeks of treatment, but the time to response and to remission was significantly shorter in the reboxetine group. The number and severity of side effects were higher in patients treated with reboxetine at all time points. Thus escitalopram and reboxetine were equally effective in treating SAD on all primary and secondary outcome measures. Reboxetine displayed a faster onset of action, but was associated with more pronounced side effects. Further studies comparing SSRI and NARI in SAD are warranted.

Escitalopram in a working population: results from an observational study of 2378 outpatients in Austria

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this observational study was to evaluate the effectiveness of escitalopram in a naturalistic sample of employed people with mood and anxiety disorders.

METHOD

Days on sick leave 3 months prior and 3 months during treatment with escitalopram were recorded and compared (mirror study design) in 2378 patients (949 men and 1376 women). A further clinical examination including the clinical global impression of severity (CGI-S) and improvement (CGI-I) scales and assessments of tolerability were used to evaluate treatment effects in a subgroup of 807 study subjects.

RESULTS

Escitalopram treatment (mean final daily dosage: 12.4+/-5.0 mg) led to a significant reduction (baseline versus end of study) of sick leave (11.0+/-12.8 days versus 5.4+/-11.0 days; p<0.001). CGI-S scores decreased from 4.7+/-0.9 at baseline to 2.4+/-1.1 after 3 months (p<0.001), the CGI-I after 3 months was 1.9+/-0.9. The incidence of adverse events after initiation of treatment with escitalopram was 13.1%, with only 1.3% of patients experiencing severe adverse events interfering with patient functioning.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that escitalopram is an efficacious and overall well-tolerated treatment in a naturalistic sample of working patients. A decrease in the days on sick leave is indicative of indirect cost-effectiveness of this treatment.