Citalopram treatment of fluoxetine nonresponders

Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic interaction associated with venlafaxine-XR remission in patients with major depressive disorder with history of citalopram / escitalopram treatment failure

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to identify specific pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) factors that affect the likelihood of treatment remission with a serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) in depressed patients whose initial selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) failed.

METHODS

Multiple logistic regression modeling of PK and PD variation hypothesized to contribute to SNRI (i.e. duloxetine or venlafaxine) treatment remission in prior SSRI (i.e. citalopram or escitalopram) failure was conducted on 139 subjects from the Pharmacogenomics Research Network (PGRN) and Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) studies. Depressive symptoms were assessed with the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology Clinician-rated (QIDS-C₁₆).

RESULTS

Venlafaxine-XR remission was associated with a significant interaction between CYP2D6 ultra-rapid metabolizer (URM) phenotype and SLC6A4 5-HTTLPR L/L genotype. A similar significant interaction effect was observed between CYP2D6 URM and SLC6A2 G1287A GA genotype. Stratifying by transporter genotypes, venlafaxine-XR remission was associated with CYP2D6 URM in patients with SLC6A4 L/L (p = 0.001) and SLC6A2 G1287A GA genotypes.

LIMITATIONS

The primary limitation of this post hoc study was small sample size.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that CYP2D6 ultra-rapid metabolizer status contributes to venlafaxine-XR treatment remission in MDD patients; in particular, there is a PK-PD interaction with treatment remission associated with CYP2D6 URM phenotype and SLC6A4 5-HTTLPR L/L or SLC6A2 G1287A G/A genotype, respectively. These preliminary data are encouraging and support larger pharmacogenomics studies differentiating treatment response to mechanistically different antidepressants in addition to further PK-PD interactive analyses.

Treatment and Prevention of Depression

Depression is one of the most common and debilitating psychiatric disorders and is a leading cause of suicide. Most people who become depressed will have multiple episodes, and some depressions are chronic. Persons with bipolar disorder will also have manic or hypomanic episodes. Given the recurrent nature of the disorder, it is important not just to treat the acute episode, but also to protect against its return and the onset of subsequent episodes.

Several types of interventions have been shown to be efficacious in treating depression. The antidepressant medications are relatively safe and work for many patients, but there is no evidence that they reduce risk of recurrence once their use is terminated. The different medication classes are roughly comparable in efficacy, although some are easier to tolerate than are others. About half of all patients will respond to a given medication, and many of those who do not will respond to some other agent or to a combination of medications. Electro-convulsive therapy is particularly effective for the most severe and resistant depressions, but raises concerns about possible deleterious effects on memory and cognition. It is rarely used until a number of different medications have been tried.

Although it is still unclear whether traditional psychodynamic approaches are effective in treating depression, interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) has fared well in controlled comparisons with medications and other types of psychotherapies. It also appears to have a delayed effect that improves the quality of social relationships and interpersonal skills. It has been shown to reduce acute distress and to prevent relapse and recurrence so long as it is continued or maintained. Treatment combining IPT with medication retains the quick results of pharmacotherapy and the greater interpersonal breadth of IPT, as well as boosting response in patients who are otherwise more difficult to treat. The main problem is that IPT has only recently entered clinical practice and is not widely available to those in need.

Cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) also appears to be efficacious in treating depression, and recent studies suggest that it can work for even severe depressions in the hands of experienced therapists. Not only can CBT relieve acute distress, but it also appears to reduce risk for the return of symptoms as long as it is continued or maintained. Moreover, it appears to have an enduring effect that reduces risk for relapse or recurrence long after treatment is over. Combined treatment with medication and CBT appears to be as efficacious as treatment with medication alone and to retain the enduring effects of CBT. There also are indications that the same strategies used to reduce risk in psychiatric patients following successful treatment can be used to prevent the initial onset of depression in persons at risk. More purely behavioral interventions have been studied less than the cognitive therapies, but have performed well in recent trials and exhibit many of the benefits of cognitive therapy.

Mood stabilizers like lithium or the anticonvulsants form the core treatment for bipolar disorder, but there is a growing recognition that the outcomes produced by modern pharmacology are not sufficient. Both IPT and CBT show promise as adjuncts to medication with such patients. The same is true for family-focused therapy, which is designed to reduce interpersonal conflict in the family. Clearly, more needs to be done with respect to treatment of the bipolar disorders.

Good medical management of depression can be hard to find, and the empirically supported psychotherapies are still not widely practiced. As a consequence, many patients do not have access to adequate treatment. Moreover, not everyone responds to the existing interventions, and not enough is known about what to do for people who are not helped by treatment. Although great strides have been made over the past few decades, much remains to be done with respect to the treatment of depression and the bipolar disorders.

Sertraline treatment of patients with major depressive disorder who failed initial treatment with paroxetine or fluvoxamine

This study was undertaken to examine the long-term effectiveness and safety of switching to sertraline from other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the treatment of non-remitted or treatment-intolerant major depressive disorder. The study included 25 patients with major depressive disorder according to DSM-IV-TR criteria. None had achieved remission with paroxetine or fluvoxamine, but each had been used in an adequate dose for an adequate time period or had been intolerant of these SSRIs. Most patients (n=22, 88%) were non-remitters. Switching was accomplished by gradual cross-titration and tapering. We conducted assessments at baseline and at weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24. Outcomes were assessed using the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report, Japanese version (QIDS-SRJ) score (primary outcome), the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), and the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scale. Mean QIDS-SRJ and HDRS scores improved significantly from baseline to week 8 and week 24. At the respective endpoints of weeks 8 and 24, remitters on QIDS-SRJ (≤5) were 2 of 25 (8%) and 4 of 25 (16%). At weeks 8 and 24, 11 of 25 (44%) were responders on QIDS-SRJ (≥50% reduction). Five patients (20%) terminated early, before week 8, because of side effects and/or lack of efficacy. These preliminary data suggest that the switching strategy from paroxetine or fluvoxamine to sertraline might be effective and well-tolerated in patients with non-remitted or treatment-intolerant major depressive disorder.

Sertraline increases extracellular levels not only of serotonin, but also of dopamine in the nucleus accumbens and striatum of rats

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are a first-line treatment for depression. Recent reports in the literature describe differences in antidepressant effects among SSRIs. Although each SSRI apparently has different pharmacological actions aside from serotonin reuptake inhibition, the relations between antidepressant effects and unique pharmacological properties in respective SSRIs remain unclear. This study was designed to compare abilities of three systemically administered SSRIs to increase the extracellular levels of serotonin, dopamine, and noradrenaline acutely in three brain regions of male Sprague-Dawley rats. We examined effects of sertraline, fluvoxamine, and paroxetine on extracellular serotonin, dopamine, and noradrenaline levels in the medial prefrontal cortex, nucleus accumbens and striatum of rats using in vivo microdialysis. Dialysate samples were collected in sample vials every 20 min for 460 min. Extracellular serotonin, dopamine, and noradrenaline levels were determined using high-performance liquid chromatography with electrochemical detection. All SSRI administrations increased extracellular serotonin levels in all regions. Only sertraline administration increased extracellular dopamine concentrations in the nucleus accumbens and striatum. All SSRI administrations increased extracellular noradrenaline levels in the nucleus accumbens, although fluvoxamine was less effective. These results suggest that neurochemical differences account for the differences in clinical antidepressant effects among SSRIs.

Therapeutic options for treatment-resistant depression

Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) presents major challenges for both patients and clinicians. There is no universally accepted definition of TRD, but results from the US National Institute of Mental Health's (NIMH) STAR*D (Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression) programme indicate that after the failure of two treatment trials, the chances of remission decrease significantly. Several pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments for TRD may be considered when optimized (adequate dose and duration) therapy has not produced a successful outcome and a patient is classified as resistant to treatment. Nonpharmacological strategies include psychotherapy (often in conjunction with pharmacotherapy), electroconvulsive therapy and vagus nerve stimulation. The US FDA recently approved vagus nerve stimulation as adjunctive therapy (after four prior treatment failures); however, its benefits are seen only after prolonged (up to 1 year) use. Other nonpharmacological options, such as repetitive transcranial stimulation, deep brain stimulation or psychosurgery, remain experimental and are not widely available. Pharmacological treatments of TRD can be grouped in two main categories: 'switching' or 'combining'. In the first, treatment is switched within and between classes of compounds. The benefits of switching include avoidance of polypharmacy, a narrower range of treatment-emergent adverse events and lower costs. An inherent disadvantage of any switching strategy is that partial treatment responses resulting from the initial treatment might be lost by its discontinuation in favour of another medication trial. Monotherapy switches have also been shown to have limited effectiveness in achieving remission. The advantage of combination strategies is the potential to build upon achieved improvements; they are generally recommended if partial response was achieved with the current treatment trial. Various non-antidepressant augmenting agents, such as lithium and thyroid hormones, are well studied, although not commonly used. There is also evidence of efficacy and increasing use of atypical antipsychotics in combination with antidepressants, for example, olanzapine in combination with fluoxetine (OFC) or augmentation with aripiprazole. The disadvantages of a combination strategy include multiple medications, a broader range of treatment-emergent adverse events and higher costs. Several experimental pharmaceutical treatment alternatives for TRD are also being explored in combination with antidepressants or as monotherapy. These less studied alternative compounds include pindolol, inositol, CNS stimulants, hormones, herbal supplements, omega-3 fatty acids, S-adenosyl-L-methionine, folic acid, lamotrigine, modafinil, riluzole and topiramate. In summary, despite an increasing variety of choices for the treatment of TRD, this condition remains universally undefined and represents an area of unmet medical need. There are few known approved pharmacological agents for TRD (aripiprazole and OFC) and overall outcomes remain poor. This might be an indication that depression itself is a heterogeneous condition with a great diversity of pathologies, highlighting the need for careful evaluation of individuals with depressive symptoms who are unresponsive to treatment. Clearly, more research is needed to provide clinicians with better guidance in making those treatment decisions--especially in light of accumulating evidence that the longer patients are unsuccessfully treated, the worse their long-term prognosis tends to be.

Introduction: selecting an antidepressant

Four years ago, my colleagues and I published an article titled “Why isn't bupropion the most frequently prescribed antidepressant?” The goal of that article was not to advocate bupropion as the preferred agent for treating depression, but rather to stimulate discussion about how psychiatrists choose an antidepressant as well as to highlight the gap between results of efficacy studies and clinical decision making in real-world practice.

The argument in support of bupropion being the preferred antidepressant was based on three premises: all antidepressants are equally effective; adverse effects (AEs) of greatest concern to patients who take antidepressants are weight gain and sexual dysfunction; and bupropion does not cause either of these AEs. Acceptance of these three premises suggested the title of that article.

Although many reviews of the antidepressant literature, including the revised American Psychiatric Association Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder, conclude that antidepressants are equally effective in general, several experts in the treatment of depression have suggested that medications with >1 mechanism of action may be more effective than agents that have more selective neurotransmitter effects. In a meta-analysis of eight studies comparing the remission rates in patients treated with the serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) venlafaxine or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), Thase and colleagues demonstrated that venlafaxine was more effective than SSRIs in achieving remission in depressed patients. However, these conclusions were tentative as most of the included studies were comparisons of venlafaxine and fluoxetine; only one study included sertraline, and there were no studies of citalopram included in the review. In addition, patients who had previously failed treatment with an SSRI were not excluded, and, although patients who fail with one SSRI may respond to subsequent treatment with another SSRI, the inclusion of SSRI failures may favor venlafaxine in comparisons with SSRIs. Lastly, all of the studies included in the meta-analysis were funded by the manufacturer of venlafaxine.

Retrial of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in children with pervasive developmental disorders: a retrospective chart review

BACKGROUND

Youths with pervasive developmental disorders (PDDs) often have symptoms that fail to respond to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) treatment. These children may be given a subsequent trial of another SSRI. This study reports on the outcome of PDD youths who received a second SSRI trial after an initial treatment failure.

METHODS

Clinic charts were reviewed for 22 outpatient youths with a DSM-IV diagnosis of a PDD who were treated with an SSRI after an initial failure with a previous SSRI. Response for the second SSRI trial was determined using the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement Scale (CGI-I). Treatment indications, symptom severity, demographic data, and side effects were recorded.

RESULTS

For the second SSRI trial, 31.8% of the subjects were rated as much improved on the CGI-I scale and determined to be responders, with 68.2% of the subjects demonstrating activation side effects. 90% of subjects demonstrated activation side effects when data from both SSRI trials were combined. There were no statistically significant associations between outcome of the second SSRI trial and clinical/demographic variables.

CONCLUSIONS

A second trial of an SSRI after an initial SSRI treatment failure was often unsuccessful in children and adolescents with PDDs. Activation side effects were common. Because alternative treatments in this population are limited, a second trial of an SSRI may still be considered. The study was limited by its retrospective design and by its small sample size.

Open-label escitalopram treatment for pathological skin picking

Pathological skin picking is characterized by dysfunctional, repetitive and excessive manipulation of the skin resulting in noticeable tissue damage. This study sought to assess the effectiveness of escitalopram in treating pathological skin picking. Twenty-nine individuals with pathological skin picking were enrolled in an 18-week, open-label trial of escitalopram. Study measures assessing skin picking severity and impact, anxiety, depression, and quality of life were given at baseline and weeks 2, 4, 6, 10, 14, and 18. The mean maximally tolerated dose was 25.0 mg (standard deviation=8.4). For the 19 study completers, pre-post-treatment analyses revealed significant improvements (P<0.05) on measures of skin picking severity and impact, quality of life, and self-rated anxiety and depression. Completer as well as intent-to-treat analyses indicated that approximately half of the sample satisfied full medication response criteria and one-quarter were partial medication responders. Correlational analyses indicated that changes in depression, anxiety, and quality of life co-occurred with reductions in skin picking severity but not impact. A high percentage of variance in severity, however, remained unexplained. These results suggest that escitalopram can be an effective agent in reducing pathological skin picking. The lack of medication response in a subset of our sample suggests the possibility of pathological skin picking subtypes.

A Critical Overview of the Pharmacologic Management of Treatment-Resistant Depression

Major depressive disorder is a frequent, serious disorder that usually responds partially to treatment and leaves many patients with treatment resistance. This article reviews and critically evaluates the evidence for the management of treatment-resistant depression and examines pharmacologic approaches to alleviate the suffering of patients who benefit insufficiently from initial treatment.

A comparative meta-analysis of Clinical Global Impressions change in antidepressant trials

Two scales of the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) Scale are frequently used in antidepressant trials. No research has systematically addressed how CGI change compares to change on established measures such as the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, or Beck Depression Inventory. The current meta-analysis examined 75 antidepressant trials in which the CGI was used along with at least one other popular depression measure. The CGI-Severity scale was significantly more conservative than the HAM-D in rating change in double-blind trials, but not in open trials. The Beck Depression Inventory was significantly more conservative than the CGI-Severity. The CGI-Improvement scale was significantly more liberal than the HAM-D or Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale. Rater bias or scale content may explain differences between measures. Given the often substantial differences between instruments, researchers should use a variety of measures rather than relying on any single tool in assessing treatment response.

Effects of risperidone augmentation in patients with treatment-resistant depression: Results of open-label treatment followed by double-blind continuation

Approximately one-third of persons with depression do not respond to antidepressant monotherapy. Studies suggest that atypical antipsychotic augmentation may benefit these patients. We investigated the longer-term efficacy of risperidone augmentation of serotonin-selective reuptake inhibitor treatment for resistant depression. In 57 in- and outpatient centers in three countries, we conducted a three-phase study with 4-6 weeks of open-label citalopram monotherapy, 4-6 weeks of open-label risperidone augmentation, and a 24-week double-blind, placebo-controlled discontinuation phase. A total of 489 patients with major depressive disorder and 1-3 documented treatment failures entered the citalopram monotherapy phase (20-60 mg/day). Patients with <50% reduction in HAM-D-17 scores entered the risperidone augmentation phase (0.25-2.0 mg/day). Patients with HAM-D-17< or =7 or CGI-S < or = 2 were randomized to risperidone or placebo augmentation. The primary outcome was time to relapse during the double-blind phase. During citalopram monotherapy, 434 patients had <50% HAM-D-17 reduction; 299 (68.9%) were fully nonresponsive (<25% reduction) and 135 were partially nonresponsive (25-49% reduction). Of the 386 nonresponders who entered the augmentation phase, 243 remitted and 241 entered the double-blind phase. Median time to relapse was 102 days with risperidone augmentation and 85 days with placebo (NS); relapse rates were 53.3 and 54.6%, respectively. In a post hoc analysis of patients fully nonresponsive to citalopram monotherapy, median time to relapse was 97 days with risperidone augmentation and 56 with placebo (p = 0.05); relapse rates were 56.1 and 64.1%, respectively (p < or = 0.05). Open-label risperidone augmentation substantially enhanced response in treatment-resistant patients, but the longer-term benefits of augmentation were not demonstrated in this study.

Treatment with venlafaxine extended release after SSRI nonresponse or intolerance: a randomized comparison of standard- and higher-dosing strategies

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate efficacy of standard and higher doses of venlafaxine extended release (ER) in depressed outpatients who had either not responded to or could not tolerate an adequate trial of therapy with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI).

METHODS

Outpatients (n = 232) with major depressive disorder were randomly assigned to 8 weeks of treatment with either "standard" (n = 119; mean dose = 148 mg/d) or "higher" (n = 113; mean dose = 309 mg/d) dosage therapies. Between weeks 8 and 12, nonresponders in the standard dose group could receive higher dose therapy.

RESULTS

Response rates in the higher dose group were significantly greater at week 8 on the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scale (68% vs 52%; P < 0.001) and Patient Global Impressions scale (intent-to- treat; 68% vs 52%; P < 0.001). The dosing strategies did not, however, differ significantly in change in HAM-D21 total score or HAM-D21 response or remission rates. At week 12, there were no significant efficacy differences between the two groups in the intent-to-treat sample. Five side effects (constipation, sweating, hypertension, agitation, and urinary frequency) were more common in the high-dose group.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher dose therapy with venlafaxine ER (ie, 300-375 mg/d) resulted in a more rapid response on some measures, but was not as well tolerated as therapy at standard doses. Although these data provide further evidence of a dose-response relationship for venlafaxine therapy results suggest that slower titration to higher doses of venlafaxine ER may improve tolerability without greatly diminishing the probability of success.

Bupropion-SR, sertraline, or venlafaxine-XR after failure of SSRIs for depression

BACKGROUND

After unsuccessful treatment for depression with a selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), it is not known whether switching to one antidepressant is more effective than switching to another.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 727 adult outpatients with a nonpsychotic major depressive disorder who had no remission of symptoms or could not tolerate the SSRI citalopram to receive one of the following drugs for up to 14 weeks: sustained-release bupropion (239 patients) at a maximal daily dose of 400 mg, sertraline (238 patients) at a maximal daily dose of 200 mg, or extended-release venlafaxine (250 patients) at a maximal daily dose of 375 mg. The study was conducted in 18 primary and 23 psychiatric care settings. The primary outcome was symptom remission, defined by a total score of 7 or less on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD-17) at the end of the study. Scores on the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology - Self Report (QIDS-SR-16), obtained at treatment visits, determined secondary outcomes, including remission (a score of 5 or less at exit) and response (a reduction of 50 percent or more on baseline scores).

RESULTS

Remission rates as assessed by the HRSD-17 and the QIDS-SR-16, respectively, were 21.3 percent and 25.5 percent for sustained-release bupropion, 17.6 percent and 26.6 percent for sertraline, and 24.8 percent and 25.0 percent for extended-release venlafaxine. QIDS-SR-16 response rates were 26.1 percent for sustained-release bupropion, 26.7 percent for sertraline, and 28.2 percent for extended-release venlafaxine. These treatments did not differ significantly with respect to outcomes, tolerability, or adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

After unsuccessful treatment with an SSRI, approximately one in four patients had a remission of symptoms after switching to another antidepressant. Any one of the medications in the study provided a reasonable second-step choice for patients with depression. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00021528.).

Optimal length of antidepressant trials in late-life depression

There is a long-standing belief that elderly patients take longer to respond to antidepressant treatment than younger patients, and thus, require longer trials to respond or remit. This has led to the question: What is the minimum duration of antidepressant treatment necessary to identify responders in older depressed adults? A 12-week duration was tested based on 2 separate ideas: (1) older patients take longer to respond and, therefore, require longer trials to achieve optimal response (ie, remission), and (2) patients who are still quite symptomatic at Week 11 may improve dramatically and meet response, or even remission, criteria by Week 12. The data that support these beliefs are sparse and what little exist are contradictory. Rates of response and time-to-response were analyzed in depressed older adults in two 12-week clinical trials. The results do not support the belief that older patients take longer to respond or that, generally, as a group, older patients have a lower response rate. Furthermore, if patients do not have > or =30% reduction in baseline Hamilton Rating Score for Depression (HRSD) by Week 4, the probability that they will meet remission criteria (defined as HRSD < or =10 and HRSD < or =6) at the end of the trial is only 35% and 16.5%, respectively. Therefore, a 12-week trial is not necessary for all older patients; rather, the degree of improvement in the first 4 to 6 weeks identifies patients who are highly likely to benefit from continuing antidepressant treatment as well as those who very probably should have their treatment regimen altered at that point.

Selectivity of SSRIs: individualising patient care through rational treatment choices

Despite a common mode of action [inhibition of the 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) neuronal reuptake transporter], proven antidepressant efficacy and a similar range of indications (depression and a variety of anxiety disorders), the unique secondary binding properties of each selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) account for clinically significant differences in tolerability and side-effect profiles, particularly in some patients. Secondary properties within the class of SSRIs include some combination of actions at noradrenergic, dopaminergic, muscarinic cholinergic, histaminergic and sigma receptors. In addition, most SSRIs inhibit at least one of the cytochrome P450 enzymes, resulting in potential pharmacokinetic interactions with co-prescribed drugs. Although secondary properties of SSRIs can be associated with side effects, sometimes these same actions can be harnessed to good therapeutic effect through rational, informed treatment choices. In this way, agents that more consistently cause central nervous system activation (such as fluoxetine and sertraline) can be used to boost energy in patients whose depression is accompanied by fatigue and apathy, while the anxiolytic, sedative properties of others (particularly paroxetine and fluvoxamine) can be beneficial in patients with insomnia and agitation. When secondary properties are experienced as undesirable side effects, agents with greater selectivity for the serotonin transporter and without significant secondary binding properties, such as citalopram and escitalopram, may be desirable. This article explains how an understanding of the secondary binding properties of the SSRIs can guide individualised treatment across the spectrum of depressive and anxious states.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors combined with venlafaxine in depressed patients who had partial response to venlafaxine: four cases

One third of depressive patients show partial or no response to antidepressant treatment. With partial or nonresponders, treatment strategies are as follows: switching to another antidepressant, augmenting with other psychotropic agents, or combining antidepressants. There are no data in the literature about the positive effect of combining venlafaxine with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). In this report, the presented cases had been on at least two different classes of antidepressant medication (or combination of antidepressants) for an adequate time and dose. They showed only a partial response to high dose of venlafaxine but improved after the addition of an SSRI (sertraline, citalopram, or paroxetine) to venlafaxine. The combination treatment was well tolerated in all of the cases.

Background and rationale for the sequenced treatment alternatives to relieve depression (STAR*D) study

Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) attempts to fill in major clinical information gaps and to evaluate the theoretical principles and clinical beliefs that currently guide pharmacotherapy of major depressive disorder. The study is conducted in representative participant groups and settings using clinical management tools that easily can be applied in daily practice. Outcomes include clinical outcomes and health care utilization and cost estimates. Research findings should be immediately applicable to, and easily implemented in, the daily primary and specialty care practices. This article provides the overall rationale for STAR*D and details the rationale for key design, measurement, and analytic features of the study.

Citalopram treatment of paroxetine-intolerant depressed patients

We assessed the tolerability and antidepressant response to citalopram in a group of patients who could not tolerate a recent trial of paroxetine therapy. Sixty-one outpatients with major depressive disorder and a confirmed history of intolerance to paroxetine (mean final dose: 26.7 mg/day) were switched after at least a 1 week washout to citalopram therapy (20 mg/day). During the 6-week, open label treatment protocol, citalopram could be titrated up to a maximum dose of 40 mg/day. Response was evaluated using the Clinical Global Impressions CGI scale, the 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, and several other measures of symptoms and quality of life. Fifty-three patients (87%) completed 6 weeks of citalopram therapy (mean intent-to-treat dose: 23.9 mg/day). The specific side effects that were reported to be intolerable during the earlier paroxetine trial typically recurred only less than 30% of the time during citalopram therapy; only 6 patients (10%) dropped out because of adverse events. The intent-to-treat CGI response rate was 56% at study endpoint; 62% of the completers responded. Significant improvement from pretreatment was observed on various symptom measures after two weeks of citalopram therapy. Citalopram therapy was well tolerated, and more than one half of the patients who began treatment improved significantly. Although further work is necessary to assess the relative merits of this within-class switching strategy (as compared to other options), these data provide further evidence that the various selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors do not have interchangeable tolerability profiles.

Naturalistic study of the early psychiatric use of citalopram in the United States

We obtained information on the efficacy and safety of citalopram in settings that resemble actual clinical practice. A total of 1,783 patients participated in this open, uncontrolled, naturalistic Phase IV evaluation of citalopram at 447 U.S. investigative sites. Participants were selected by guidelines in the citalopram package insert using minimal exclusion criteria. Citalopram dosing began at 20 mg/day and could be titrated to 60 mg/day. Outcomes included the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scale (CGI-I) and a Patient Global Evaluation. Separate analyses were performed on patients with a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder (MDD) (76%) who reported intolerance or nonresponse to previous selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Patients included tended to have treatment-resistant or intolerant, chronic or recurrent, comorbid depression with a mean duration of illness of 10 years. At study completion, more than 68% of treatment completers were classified as responders (CGI-I score of 1 or 2). Endpoint analyses showed response rates of 54% in all patients, 56% in patients with MDD, 49% in SSRI nonresponsive patients, and 53% in patients with a history of SSRI intolerance. Nausea (9.8%) and headache (7.3%) were the most often reported adverse events. Patients with a history of SSRI intolerance had a discontinuation rate of 21.8%, whereas those without such a history had a discontinuation rate of 13.3%. Citalopram administered at an average dose of 23.6 mg/day was associated with favorable outcomes and was generally well tolerated.

Escitalopram

Escitalopram oxalate (S-citalopram, Lexapro), a selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor antidepressant which is the S-enantiomer of citalopram, is in clinical development worldwide for the treatment of depression and anxiety disorders. Preclinical studies demonstrate that the therapeutic activity of citalopram resides in the S-isomer and that escitalopram binds with high affinity to the human serotonin transporter. Conversely, R-citalopram is approximately 30-fold less potent than escitalopram at this transporter. Escitalopram has linear pharmacokinetics, so that plasma levels increase proportionately and predictably with increased doses and its half-life of 27 - 32 h is consistent with once-daily dosing. In addition, escitalopram has negligible effects on cytochrome P450 drug-metabolising enzymes in vitro, suggesting a low potential for drug-drug interactions. The efficacy of escitalopram in patients with major depressive disorder has been demonstrated in multiple short-term, placebo-controlled clinical trials, three of which included citalopram as an active control, as well as in a 36-week study evaluating efficacy in the prevention of depression relapse. In these studies, escitalopram was shown to have robust efficacy in the treatment of depression and associated symptoms of anxiety relative to placebo. Efficacy has also been shown in treating generalised anxiety disorder, panic disorder and social anxiety disorder. Results also suggest that, at comparable doses, escitalopram demonstrates clinically relevant and statistically significant superiority to placebo treatment earlier than citalopram. Analysis of the safety database shows a low rate of discontinuation due to adverse events, and there was no statistically significant difference between escitalopram 10 mg/day and placebo in the proportion of patients who discontinued treatment early because of adverse events. The most common adverse events associated with escitalopram which occurred at a rate greater than placebo include nausea, insomnia, ejaculation disorder, diarrhoea, dry mouth and somnolence. Only nausea occurred in > 10% of escitalopram-treated patients.