Prevention of recurrent episodes of depression with venlafaxine ER in a 1-year maintenance phase from the PREVENT Study

Is combined antidepressant medication (ADM) and psychotherapy better than either monotherapy at preventing suicide attempts and other psychiatric serious adverse events for depressed patients? A rare events meta-analysis

Antidepressant medication (ADM)-only, psychotherapy-only, and their combination are the first-line treatment options for major depressive disorder (MDD). Previous meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) established that psychotherapy and combined treatment were superior to ADM-only for MDD treatment remission or response. The current meta-analysis extended previous ones by determining the comparative efficacy of ADM-only, psychotherapy-only, and combined treatment on suicide attempts and other serious psychiatric adverse events (i.e. psychiatric emergency department [ED] visit, psychiatric hospitalization, and/or suicide death; SAEs). Peto odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals were computed from the present random-effects meta-analysis. Thirty-four relevant RCTs were included. Psychotherapy-only was stronger than combined treatment (1.9% v. 3.7%; OR 1.96 [1.20-3.20], p = 0.012) and ADM-only (3.0% v. 5.6%; OR 0.45 [0.30-0.67], p = 0.001) in decreasing the likelihood of SAEs in the primary and trim-and-fill sensitivity analyses. Combined treatment was better than ADM-only in reducing the probability of SAEs (6.0% v. 8.7%; OR 0.74 [0.56-0.96], p = 0.029), but this comparative efficacy finding was non-significant in the sensitivity analyses. Subgroup analyses revealed the advantage of psychotherapy-only over combined treatment and ADM-only for reducing SAE risk among children and adolescents and the benefit of combined treatment over ADM-only among adults. Overall, psychotherapy and combined treatment outperformed ADM-only in reducing the likelihood of SAEs, perhaps by conferring strategies to enhance reasons for living. Plausibly, psychotherapy should be prioritized for high-risk youths and combined treatment for high-risk adults with MDD.

An assessment of the reporting of tapering methods in antidepressant discontinuation trials using the TIDieR checklist

BACKGROUND

The importance of tapering is increasingly recognised when discontinuing antidepressant medication. However, no previous studies have examined the reporting of antidepressant tapering methods in published studies.

AIM

The aim of this study was to assess the completeness of reporting of antidepressant tapering methods in a published systematic review using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist.

METHOD

A secondary analysis was conducted of studies included in a Cochrane systematic review that examined the effectiveness of approaches for discontinuing long-term antidepressant use. The completeness of reporting of antidepressant tapering methods in included studies was independently assessed by two researchers using the 12 items from the TIDieR checklist.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies were included in the analysis. None of the study reports described all checklists items. No study clearly reported what materials had been provided (item 3) or whether tailoring had occurred (item 9). With the exception of providing a name for the intervention or study procedures (item 1), only a minority of studies clearly reported on any of the remaining checklist items.

CONCLUSION

The findings highlight a lack of detailed reporting of antidepressant tapering methods in published trials to date. This needs to be addressed as poor reporting could hinder replication and adaptation of existing interventions, as well as the potential for successful translation of effective tapering interventions into clinical practice.

Antidepressants and Social Functioning in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled RCTs

INTRODUCTION

Social functioning (SF) is the ability to fulfil one's social obligations and a key outcome in treatment.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to estimate the effects of antidepressants on SF in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHODS

This meta-analysis and its reporting are based on Cochrane Collaboration's Handbook of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and PRISMA guidelines (protocol registration at OSF). We systematically searched CENTRAL, Medline, PubMed Central, and PsycINFO for double-blind RCTs comparing antidepressants with placebo and reporting on SF. We computed standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs and prediction intervals.

RESULTS

We selected 40 RCTs out of 1,188 records screened, including 16,586 patients (mean age 46.8 years, 64.2% women). In 27 studies investigating patients with MDD (primary depression), antidepressants resulted in a SMD of 0.25 compared to placebo ([95% CI: 0.21; 0.30] I2: 39%). In 13 trials with patients suffering from MDD comorbid with physical conditions or disorders, the summary estimate was 0.24 ([0.10; 0.37] I2: 75%). In comorbid depression, studies with high/uncertain risk of bias had higher SMDs than low-risk studies: 0.29 [0.13; 0.44] versus 0.04 [-0.16; 0.24]; no such effect was evident in primary depression. There was no indication of sizeable reporting bias. SF efficacy correlated with efficacy on depression scores, Spearman's rho 0.67 (p < 0.001), and QoL, 0.63 (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The effect of antidepressants on SF is small, similar to its effect on depressive symptoms in primary MDD, and doubtful in comorbid depression. Strong correlations with both antidepressive and QoL effects suggest overlap among domains.

Antidepressants for the treatment of adults with major depressive disorder in the maintenance phase: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

A systematic review and random-effects model network meta-analysis were conducted to compare the efficacy, acceptability, tolerability, and safety of antidepressants to treat adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) in the maintenance phase. This study searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases and included only double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials with an enrichment design: patients were stabilized on the antidepressant of interest during the open-label study and then randomized to receive the same antidepressant or placebo. The outcomes were the 6-month relapse rate (primary outcome, efficacy), all-cause discontinuation (acceptability), discontinuation due to adverse events (tolerability), and the incidence of individual adverse events. The risk ratio with a 95% credible interval was calculated. The meta-analysis comprised 34 studies (n = 9384, mean age = 43.80 years, and %females = 68.10%) on 20 antidepressants (agomelatine, amitriptyline, bupropion, citalopram, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, levomilnacipran, milnacipran, mirtazapine, nefazodone, paroxetine, reboxetine, sertraline, tianeptine, venlafaxine, vilazodone, and vortioxetine) and a placebo. In terms of the 6-month relapse rate, amitriptyline, citalopram, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, mirtazapine, nefazodone, paroxetine, reboxetine, sertraline, tianeptine, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine outperformed placebo. Compared to placebo, desvenlafaxine, paroxetine, sertraline, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine had lower all-cause discontinuation; however, sertraline had a higher discontinuation rate due to adverse events. Compared to placebo, venlafaxine was associated with a lower incidence of dizziness, while desvenlafaxine, sertraline, and vortioxetine were associated with a higher incidence of nausea/vomiting. In conclusion, desvenlafaxine, paroxetine, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine had reasonable efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability in the treatment of adults with stable MDD.

Effects of antidepressant medicines on preventing relapse of unipolar depression: a pooled analysis of parametric survival curves

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorder is characterized by a high risk of relapse. We aimed to compare the prophylactic effects of different antidepressant medicines (ADMs).

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase and the Web of Science were searched on 4 July 2019. A pooled analysis of parametric survival curves was performed using a Bayesian framework. The main outcomes were hazard ratios (HRs), relapse-free survival and mean relapse-free months.

RESULTS

Forty randomized controlled trials were included. The 1-year relapse-free survival for ADM (76%) was significantly better than that for placebo (56%). Most of the relapse difference (86.5%) occurred in the first 6 months. Most HRs were not constant over time. Proof of benefit after 6 months of follow-up was not established partially because of small differences between the drug and placebo after 6 months. Almost all studies used an 'enriched' randomized discontinuation design, which may explain the high relapse rates in the first 6 months after randomization.

CONCLUSIONS

The superiority of ADM v. placebo was mainly attributed to the difference in relapse rates that occurred in the first 6 months. Our analysis provided evidence that the prophylactic efficacy was not constant over time. A beneficial effect was observed, but the prevention of new episodes after 6 months was questionable. These findings may have implications for clinical practice.

Approaches for discontinuation versus continuation of long-term antidepressant use for depressive and anxiety disorders in adults

BACKGROUND

Depression and anxiety are the most frequent indication for which antidepressants are prescribed. Long-term antidepressant use is driving much of the internationally observed rise in antidepressant consumption. Surveys of antidepressant users suggest that 30% to 50% of long-term antidepressant prescriptions had no evidence-based indication. Unnecessary use of antidepressants puts people at risk of adverse events. However, high-certainty evidence is lacking regarding the effectiveness and safety of approaches to discontinuing long-term antidepressants.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of approaches for discontinuation versus continuation of long-term antidepressant use for depressive and anxiety disorders in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched all databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) until January 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs comparing approaches to discontinuation with continuation of antidepressants (or usual care) for people with depression or anxiety who are prescribed antidepressants for at least six months. Interventions included discontinuation alone (abrupt or taper), discontinuation with psychological therapy support, and discontinuation with minimal intervention. Primary outcomes were successful discontinuation rate, relapse (as defined by authors of the original study), withdrawal symptoms, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, quality of life, social and occupational functioning, and severity of illness.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 33 studies involving 4995 participants. Nearly all studies were conducted in a specialist mental healthcare service and included participants with recurrent depression (i.e. two or more episodes of depression prior to discontinuation). All included trials were at high risk of bias. The main limitation of the review is bias due to confounding withdrawal symptoms with symptoms of relapse of depression. Withdrawal symptoms (such as low mood, dizziness) may have an effect on almost every outcome including adverse events, quality of life, social functioning, and severity of illness. Abrupt discontinuation Thirteen studies reported abrupt discontinuation of antidepressant. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that abrupt discontinuation without psychological support may increase risk of relapse (hazard ratio (HR) 2.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59 to 2.74; 1373 participants, 10 studies) and there is insufficient evidence of its effect on adverse events (odds ratio (OR) 1.11, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.99; 1012 participants, 7 studies; I² = 37%) compared to continuation of antidepressants, without specific assessment of withdrawal symptoms. Evidence about the effects of abrupt discontinuation on withdrawal symptoms (1 study) is very uncertain. None of these studies included successful discontinuation rate as a primary endpoint. Discontinuation by "taper" Eighteen studies examined discontinuation by "tapering" (one week or longer). Most tapering regimens lasted four weeks or less. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that "tapered" discontinuation may lead to higher risk of relapse (HR 2.97, 95% CI 2.24 to 3.93; 1546 participants, 13 studies) with no or little difference in adverse events (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.38; 1479 participants, 7 studies; I² = 0%) compared to continuation of antidepressants, without specific assessment of withdrawal symptoms. Evidence about the effects of discontinuation on withdrawal symptoms (1 study) is very uncertain. Discontinuation with psychological support Four studies reported discontinuation with psychological support. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that initiation of preventive cognitive therapy (PCT), or MBCT, combined with "tapering" may result in successful discontinuation rates of 40% to 75% in the discontinuation group (690 participants, 3 studies). Data from control groups in these studies were requested but are not yet available. Low-certainty evidence suggests that discontinuation combined with psychological intervention may result in no or little effect on relapse (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.19; 690 participants, 3 studies) compared to continuation of antidepressants. Withdrawal symptoms were not measured. Pooling data on adverse events was not possible due to insufficient information (3 studies). Discontinuation with minimal intervention Low-certainty evidence from one study suggests that a letter to the general practitioner (GP) to review antidepressant treatment may result in no or little effect on successful discontinuation rate compared to usual care (6% versus 8%; 146 participants, 1 study) or on relapse (relapse rate 26% vs 13%; 146 participants, 1 study). No data on withdrawal symptoms nor adverse events were provided. None of the studies used low-intensity psychological interventions such as online support or a changed pharmaceutical formulation that allows tapering with low doses over several months. Insufficient data were available for the majority of people taking antidepressants in the community (i.e. those with only one or no prior episode of depression), for people aged 65 years and older, and for people taking antidepressants for anxiety.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, relatively few studies have focused on approaches to discontinuation of long-term antidepressants. We cannot make any firm conclusions about effects and safety of the approaches studied to date. The true effect and safety are likely to be substantially different from the data presented due to assessment of relapse of depression that is confounded by withdrawal symptoms. All other outcomes are confounded with withdrawal symptoms. Most tapering regimens were limited to four weeks or less. In the studies with rapid tapering schemes the risk of withdrawal symptoms may be similar to studies using abrupt discontinuation which may influence the effectiveness of the interventions. Nearly all data come from people with recurrent depression.   There is an urgent need for trials that adequately address withdrawal confounding bias, and carefully distinguish relapse from withdrawal symptoms. Future studies should report key outcomes such as successful discontinuation rate and should include populations with one or no prior depression episodes in primary care, older people, and people taking antidepressants for anxiety and use tapering schemes longer than 4 weeks.

Role of central serotonin and noradrenaline interactions in the antidepressants' action: Electrophysiological and neurochemical evidence

The development of antidepressant drugs, in the last 6 decades, has been associated with theories based on a deficiency of serotonin (5-HT) and/or noradrenaline (NA) systems. Although the pathophysiology of major depression (MD) is not fully understood, numerous investigations have suggested that treatments with various classes of antidepressant drugs may lead to an enhanced 5-HT and/or adapted NA neurotransmissions. In this review, particular morpho-physiological aspects of these systems are first considered. Second, principal features of central 5-HT/NA interactions are examined. In this regard, the effects of the acute and sustained antidepressant administrations on these systems are discussed. Finally, future directions including novel therapeutic strategies are proposed.

Discontinuation of antidepressants after remission with antidepressant medication in major depressive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis

A significant clinical issue encountered after a successful acute major depressive disorder (MDD) treatment is the relapse of depressive symptoms. Although continuing maintenance therapy with antidepressants is generally recommended, there is no established protocol on whether or not it is necessary to prescribe the antidepressant used to achieve remission. In this meta-analysis, the risk of relapse and treatment failure when either continuing with the same drug used to achieved remission or switching to a placebo was assessed in several clinically significant subgroups. The pooled odds ratio (OR) (±95% confidence intervals (CI)) was calculated using a random effects model. Across 40 studies (n = 8890), the relapse rate was significantly lower in the antidepressant group than the placebo group by about 20% (OR = 0.38, CI: 0.33-0.43, p < 0.00001; 20.9% vs 39.7%). The difference in the relapse rate between the antidepressant and placebo groups was greater for tricyclics (25.3%; OR = 0.30, CI: 0.17-0.50, p < 0.00001), SSRIs (21.8%; OR = 0.33, CI: 0.28-0.38, p < 0.00001), and other newer agents (16.0%; OR = 0.44, CI: 0.36-0.54, p < 0.00001) in that order, while the effect size of acceptability was greater for SSRIs than for other antidepressants. A flexible dose schedule (OR = 0.30, CI: 0.23-0.48, p < 0.00001) had a greater effect size than a fixed dose (OR = 0.41, CI: 0.36-0.48, p < 0.00001) in comparison to placebo. Even in studies assigned after continuous treatment for more than 6 months after remission, the continued use of antidepressants had a lower relapse rate than the use of a placebo (OR = 0.40, CI: 0.29-0.55, p < 0.00001; 20.2% vs 37.2%). The difference in relapse rate was similar from a maintenance period of 6 months (OR = 0.41, CI: 0.35-0.48, p < 0.00001; 19.6% vs 37.6%) to over 1 year (OR = 0.35, CI: 0.29-0.41, p < 0.00001; 19.9% vs 39.8%). The all-cause dropout of antidepressant and placebo groups was 43% and 58%, respectively, (OR = 0.47, CI: 0.40-0.55, p < 0.00001). The tolerability rate was ~4% for both groups. The rate of relapse (OR = 0.32, CI: 0.18-0.64, p = 0.0010, 41.0% vs 66.7%) and all-cause dropout among adolescents was higher than in adults. To prevent relapse and treatment failure, maintenance therapy, and careful attention for at least 6 months after remission is recommended. SSRIs are well-balanced agents, and flexible dose adjustments are more effective for relapse prevention.

Serotonin and Norepinephrine Reuptake Inhibitors

This chapter covers antidepressants that fall into the class of serotonin (5-HT) and norepinephrine (NE) reuptake inhibitors. That is, they bind to the 5-HT and NE transporters with varying levels of potency and binding affinity ratios. Unlike the selective serotonin (5-HT) reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), most of these antidepressants have an ascending rather than a flat dose-response curve. The chapter provides a brief review of the chemistry, pharmacology, metabolism, safety and adverse effects, clinical use, and therapeutic indications of each antidepressant. Venlafaxine, a phenylethylamine, is a relatively weak 5-HT and weaker NE uptake inhibitor with a 30-fold difference in binding of the two transporters. Therefore, the drug has a clear dose progression, with low doses predominantly binding to the 5-HT transporter and more binding of the NE transporter as the dose ascends. Venlafaxine is metabolized to the active metabolite O-desmethylvenlafaxine (ODV; desvenlafaxine) by CYP2D6, and it therefore is subject to significant inter-individual variation in blood levels and response dependent on variations in CYP2D6 metabolism. The half-life of venlafaxine is short at about 5 h, with the ODV metabolite being 12 h. Both parent compound and metabolite have low protein binding and neither inhibit CYP enzymes. Therefore, both venlafaxine and desvenlafaxine are potential options if drug-drug interactions are a concern, although venlafaxine may be subject to drug-drug interactions with CYP2D6 inhibitors. At low doses, the adverse effect profile is similar to an SSRI with nausea, diarrhea, fatigue or somnolence, and sexual side effects, while venlafaxine at higher doses can produce mild increases in blood pressure, diaphoresis, tachycardia, tremors, and anxiety. A disadvantage of venlafaxine relative to the SSRIs is the potential for dose-dependent blood pressure elevation, most likely due to the NE reuptake inhibition caused by higher doses; however, this adverse effect is infrequently observed at doses below 225 mg per day. Venlafaxine also has a number of potential advantages over the SSRIs, including an ascending dose-antidepressant response curve, with possibly greater overall efficacy at higher doses. Venlafaxine is approved for MDD as well as generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, and panic disorder. Desvenlafaxine is the primary metabolite of venlafaxine, and it is also a relatively low-potency 5-HT and NE uptake inhibitor. Like venlafaxine it has a favorable drug-drug interaction profile. It is subject to CYP3A4 metabolism, and it is therefore vulnerable to enzyme inhibition or induction. However, the primary metabolic pathway is direct conjugation. It is approved in the narrow dose range of 50-100 mg per day. Duloxetine is a more potent 5-HT and NE reuptake inhibitor with a more balanced profile of binding at about 10:1 for 5HT and NE transporter binding. It is also a moderate inhibitor of CYP2D6, so that modest dose reductions and careful monitoring will be needed when prescribing duloxetine in combination with drugs that are preferentially metabolized by CYP2D6. The most common side effects identified in clinical trials are nausea, dry mouth, dizziness, constipation, insomnia, asthenia, and hypertension, consistent with its mechanisms of action. Clinical trials to date have demonstrated rates of response and remission in patients with major depression that are comparable to other marketed antidepressants reviewed in this book. In addition to approval for MDD, duloxetine is approved for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, and musculoskeletal pain. Milnacipran is marketed as an antidepressant in some countries, but not in the USA. It is approved in the USA and some other countries as a treatment for fibromyalgia. It has few pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions with other drugs. Milnacipran has a half-life of about 10 h and therefore needs to be administered twice per day. It is metabolized by CYP3A4, but the major pathway for clearance is direct conjugation and renal elimination. As with other drugs in this class, dysuria is a common, troublesome, and dose-dependent adverse effect (occurring in up to 7% of patients). High-dose milnacipran has been reported to cause blood pressure and pulse elevations. Levomilnacipran is the levorotary enantiomer of milnacipran, and it is pharmacologically very similar to the racemic compound, although the side effects may be milder within the approved dosing range. As with other NE uptake inhibitors, it may increase blood pressure and pulse, although it appears to do so less than some other medications. All medications in the class can cause serotonin syndrome when combined with MAOIs.

Long-term function and psychosocial outcomes with venlafaxine extended release 75-225 mg/day versus placebo in the PREVENT study

This post-hoc analysis evaluated long-term psychosocial outcomes in patients with recurrent major depressive disorder treated with venlafaxine extended release (ER) 75-225 mg/day or placebo. Patients who responded to 10-week venlafaxine ER 75-300 mg/day treatment and maintained response through a 6-month continuation treatment were assigned randomly to venlafaxine ER or placebo maintenance-phase treatment. Data from responders to acute and continuation venlafaxine ER 75-225 mg/day treatment were analyzed during 12-month maintenance treatment while receiving venlafaxine ER of up to 225 mg/day. Failure to maintain improvement in psychosocial functioning, on the basis of the Social Adjustment Scale-Self-Report, Life Enjoyment Scale, Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire, and Short-Form Health Survey, was defined as loss of at least 50% of the improvement from acute-phase baseline achieved during acute and continuation treatment or dose escalation of more than 225 mg/day. The probability of remaining well (no failure to maintain improvement in functioning) was significantly higher through 12-month maintenance treatment for patients treated with venlafaxine ER 75-225 mg/day versus placebo Social Adjustment Scale-Self-Report, Life Enjoyment Scale, Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire, and Short-Form Health Survey component summary scores (all P≤0.0351). Effects of up to 20 months of treatment with venlafaxine ER 75-225 mg/day on psychosocial functioning were consistent with the results for venlafaxine ER 75-300 mg/day.

Efficacy of Desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d Versus Placebo in the Long-Term Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder: A Randomized, Double-Blind Trial

OBJECTIVE

To examine long-term (11-month) antidepressant efficacy of desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d across a broad range of clinical and functional outcomes in patients with major depressive disorder.

METHOD

Adult outpatients (≥ 18 years) with major depressive disorder (DSM-IV criteria) and a 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) total score ≥ 20 at screening and baseline who responded to 8 weeks of open-label desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d and had a continuing stable response through week 20 were randomly assigned to receive placebo or desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d in a 6-month, double-blind, randomized withdrawal period. Depressive symptoms were evaluated using the HDRS-17, 6-item HDRS, and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Ilness and -Improvement (CGI-S, CGI-I). Health outcomes included the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire and the World Health Organization 5-Item Well-Being Index (WHO-5). The trial was conducted from June 2009 to March 2011 at 87 study sites in 14 countries worldwide.

RESULTS

Of 874 patients enrolled in open-label treatment, 548 patients were randomly assigned to receive double-blind placebo (n = 276) or desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d (n = 272). At the end of the 6-month double-blind treatment, improvements in depressive symptoms were better maintained among the desvenlafaxine- than placebo-treated patients on all efficacy endpoints (all P ≤ .001); in the desvenlafaxine group, 21.8% (vs 42.9% in the placebo group) had CGI-I ratings of 5, 6, and 7 (minimally worse/much worse/very much worse), and 74.4% met criteria for remission (placebo: 54.2%). WPAI and WHO-5 scores indicated significantly better productivity and well-being with continued desvenlafaxine (vs placebo, P ≤ .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term treatment with desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d maintained improvements in major depressive disorder among adult outpatients who exhibited a stable therapeutic response.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00887224.

Prevention of Relapse and Recurrence in Adults with Major Depressive Disorder: Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Findings of substantial remaining morbidity in treated major depressive disorder (MDD) led us to review controlled trials of treatments aimed at preventing early relapses or later recurrences in adults diagnosed with MDD to summarize available data and to guide further research.

METHODS

Reports (n = 97) were identified through systematic, computerized literature searching up to February 2015. Treatment versus control outcomes were summarized by random-effects meta-analyses.

RESULTS

In 45 reports of 72 trials (n = 14 450 subjects) lasting 33.4 weeks, antidepressants were more effective than placebos in preventing relapses (response rates [RR] = 1.90, confidence interval [CI]: 1.73-2.08; NNT = 4.4; p < 0.0001). In 35 reports of 37 trials (n = 7253) lasting 27.0 months, antidepressants were effective in preventing recurrences (RR = 2.03, CI 1.80-2.28; NNT = 3.8; p < 0.0001), with minor differences among drug types. In 17 reports of 22 trials (n = 1 969) lasting 23.7 months, psychosocial interventions yielded inconsistent or inconclusive results.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite evidence of the efficacy of drug treatment compared to placebos or other controls, the findings further underscore the substantial, unresolved morbidity in treated MDD patients and strongly encourage further evaluations of specific, improved individual and combination therapies (pharmacological and psychological) conducted over longer times, as well as identifying clinical predictors of positive or unfavorable responses and of intolerability of long-term treatments in MDD.

Edivoxetine compared to placebo as adjunctive therapy to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in the prevention of symptom re-emergence in major depressive disorder

OBJECTIVE

When patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) are partial responders to antidepressant therapy, adjunctive treatment with an agent that has a different mode of action may provide additional benefit. We investigated the efficacy of edivoxetine, a highly selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (NRI), as adjunctive treatment to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the prevention of re-emergence of depressive symptoms in patients with MDD (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01299272).

METHODS

Adult outpatients with MDD who were partial responders to SSRI treatment (N = 1249) entered an open-label 8 week flexibly dosed (12-18 mg/day) adjunctive edivoxetine period. Patients who achieved remission (Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score ≤10 at week 8) entered a 12 week open-label fixed-dose (12 mg or 18 mg/day) stabilization period, and those still in remission at each of weeks 18, 19, and 20 were randomized to continue treatment at the same dose of edivoxetine or switch to placebo for a 24 week double-blind withdrawal period. All patients remained on SSRI therapy throughout the study. The primary outcome was time to re-emergence of depressive symptoms during double-blind withdrawal.

RESULTS

Two hundred and ninety-four patients were randomized to continue adjunctive edivoxetine and 292 were switched to adjunctive placebo. Comparing adjunctive edivoxetine with adjunctive placebo, differences were not significant for time to re-emergence of symptoms (Kaplan-Meier log-rank p = 0.485), rates of symptom re-emergence (9.9% vs 8.2%, p = 0.565) or rates of sustained remission (75.4% vs 76.7%, p = 0.771). Treatment-emergent adverse events were consistent with the noradrenergic mechanism of action.

CONCLUSIONS

Edivoxetine failed to demonstrate superiority vs placebo as adjunctive treatment in the prevention of symptom re-emergence during maintenance treatment in SSRI partial responders with MDD. While no selective NRIs are approved for adjunctive treatment to SSRIs in MDD, the use of NRIs in this population is nonetheless accepted practice, but our data do not support the efficacy of this approach.

World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) guidelines for biological treatment of unipolar depressive disorders. part 2: maintenance treatment of major depressive disorder-update 2015

These guidelines for the treatment of unipolar depressive disorders systematically review available evidence pertaining to the biological treatment of patients with major depression and produce a series of practice recommendations that are clinically and scientifically meaningful based on the available evidence. These guidelines are intended for use by all physicians assessing and treating patients with these conditions. The relevant data have been extracted primarily from various treatment guidelines and panels for depressive disorders, as well as from meta-analyses/reviews on the efficacy of antidepressant medications and other biological treatment interventions identified by a search of the MEDLINE database and Cochrane Library. The identified literature was evaluated with respect to the strength of evidence for its efficacy and was then categorized into five levels of evidence (CE A-F) and five levels of recommendation grades (RG 1-5). This second part of the WFSBP guidelines on depressive disorders covers the management of the maintenance phase treatment, and is primarily concerned with the biological treatment (including pharmacological and hormonal medications, electroconvulsive therapy and other brain stimulation treatments) of adults and also, albeit to a lesser extent, children, adolescents and older adults.

Fluoxetine versus other types of pharmacotherapy for depression

BACKGROUND

Depression is common in primary care and is associated with marked personal, social and economic morbidity, thus creating significant demands on service providers. The antidepressant fluoxetine has been studied in many randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in comparison with other conventional and unconventional antidepressants. However, these studies have produced conflicting findings.Other systematic reviews have considered selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRIs) as a group which limits the applicability of the indings for fluoxetine alone. Therefore, this review intends to provide specific and clinically useful information regarding the effects of fluoxetine for depression compared with tricyclics (TCAs), SSRIs, serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), monoamineoxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and newer agents, and other conventional and unconventional agents.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of fluoxetine in comparison with all other antidepressive agents for depression in adult individuals with unipolar major depressive disorder.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR)to 11May 2012. This register includes relevant RCTs from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (all years),MEDLINE (1950 to date), EMBASE (1974 to date) and PsycINFO (1967 to date). No language restriction was applied. Reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews were handsearched. The pharmaceutical company marketing fluoxetine and experts in this field were contacted for supplemental data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs comparing fluoxetine with any other AD (including non-conventional agents such as hypericum) for patients with unipolar major depressive disorder (regardless of the diagnostic criteria used) were included. For trials that had a cross-over design only results from the first randomisation period were considered.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted by two review authors using a standard form. Responders to treatment were calculated on an intention-to-treat basis: dropouts were always included in this analysis. When data on dropouts were carried forward and included in the efficacy evaluation, they were analysed according to the primary studies; when dropouts were excluded from any assessment in the primary studies, they were considered as treatment failures. Scores from continuous outcomes were analysed by including patients with a final assessment or with the last observation carried forward. Tolerability data were analysed by calculating the proportion of patients who failed to complete the study due to any causes and due to side effects or inefficacy. For dichotomous data, odds ratios (ORs) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the random-effects model. Continuous data were analysed using standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 171 studies were included in the analysis (24,868 participants). The included studies were undertaken between 1984 and 2012. Studies had homogenous characteristics in terms of design, intervention and outcome measures. The assessment of quality with the risk of bias tool revealed that the great majority of them failed to report methodological details, like the method of random sequence generation, the allocation concealment and blinding. Moreover, most of the included studies were sponsored by drug companies, so the potential for overestimation of treatment effect due to sponsorship bias should be considered in interpreting the results. Fluoxetine was as effective as the TCAs when considered as a group both on a dichotomous outcome (reduction of at least 50% on the Hamilton Depression Scale) (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.22, 24 RCTs, 2124 participants) and a continuous outcome (mean scores at the end of the trial or change score on depression measures) (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.14, 50 RCTs, 3393 participants). On a dichotomousoutcome, fluoxetine was less effective than dothiepin or dosulepin (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.08 to 4.20; number needed to treat (NNT) =6, 95% CI 3 to 50, 2 RCTs, 144 participants), sertraline (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.74; NNT = 13, 95% CI 7 to 58, 6 RCTs, 1188 participants), mirtazapine (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.04; NNT = 12, 95% CI 6 to 134, 4 RCTs, 600 participants) and venlafaxine(OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.51; NNT = 11, 95% CI 8 to 16, 12 RCTs, 3387 participants). On a continuous outcome, fluoxetine was more effective than ABT-200 (SMD -1.85, 95% CI -2.25 to -1.45, 1 RCT, 141 participants) and milnacipran (SMD -0.36, 95% CI-0.63 to -0.08, 2 RCTs, 213 participants); conversely, it was less effective than venlafaxine (SMD 0.10, 95% CI 0 to 0.19, 13 RCTs,3097 participants). Fluoxetine was better tolerated than TCAs considered as a group (total dropout OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.96;NNT = 20, 95% CI 13 to 48, 49 RCTs, 4194 participants) and was better tolerated in comparison with individual ADs, in particular amitriptyline (total dropout OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.85; NNT = 13, 95% CI 8 to 39, 18 RCTs, 1089 participants), and among the newer ADs ABT-200 (total dropout OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.39; NNT = 3, 95% CI 2 to 5, 1 RCT, 144 participants), pramipexole(total dropout OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.42, NNT = 3, 95% CI 2 to 5, 1 RCT, 105 participants), and reboxetine (total dropout OR0.60, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.82, NNT = 9, 95% CI 6 to 24, 4 RCTs, 764 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The present study detected differences in terms of efficacy and tolerability between fluoxetine and certain ADs, but the clinical meaning of these differences is uncertain.Moreover, the assessment of quality with the risk of bias tool showed that the great majority of included studies failed to report details on methodological procedures. Of consequence, no definitive implications can be drawn from the studies' results. The better efficacy profile of sertraline and venlafaxine (and possibly other ADs) over fluoxetine may be clinically meaningful,as already suggested by other systematic reviews. In addition to efficacy data, treatment decisions should also be based on considerations of drug toxicity, patient acceptability and cost.

Sexual functioning in patients with recurrent major depressive disorder enrolled in the PREVENT study

The incidence of treatment-emergent sexual dysfunction in the acute and continuation phases of the prevention of recurrent episodes of depression with venlafaxine ER for two years (PREVENT) study was assessed. Adult outpatients with recurrent major depressive disorder were randomly assigned to receive venlafaxine extended release (ER; 75-300 mg/day) or fluoxetine (20-60 mg/day). Sexual dysfunction was assessed using items from the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D(17)) and the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report (IDS-SR). The baseline rates of sexual dysfunction based on the HAM-D(17) and IDS-SR items were 57.9% and 48.8%, respectively. The rates of new-onset sexual dysfunction for the venlafaxine ER-treated (44.8%, HAM-D(17); 38.4%, IDS-SR) and fluoxetine-treated patients (52.9%, HAM-D(17); 50.0%, IDS-SR) were similar; approximately 80% of the cases resolved during treatment. Treatment response was associated with lower rates of new-onset sexual dysfunction compared with nonresponse. The patients who remitted were the least likely to experience sexual dysfunction during antidepressant treatment.

High-dose desvenlafaxine in outpatients with major depressive disorder

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the safety and efficacy of long-term treatment with high-dose desvenlafaxine (administered as desvenlafaxine succinate) in major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHODS

In this multicenter, open-label study, adult outpatients with MDD aged 18-75 were treated with flexible doses of desvenlafaxine (200-400 mg/d) for ≤ 1 year. Safety assessments included monitoring of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), patient discontinuations due to adverse events, electrocardiograms, vital signs, and laboratory determinations. The primary efficacy measure was mean change from baseline in the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HAM-D(17)] total score.

RESULTS

The mean daily desvenlafaxine dose range over the duration of the trial was 267-356 mg (after titration). The most frequent TEAEs in the safety population (n = 104) were nausea (52%) and headache (41%), dizziness (31%), insomnia (29%), and dry mouth (27%). All TEAEs were mild or moderate in severity. Thirty-four (33%) patients discontinued from the study because of TEAEs; nausea (12%) and dizziness (9%) were the most frequently cited reasons. The mean change in HAM-D(17) total score for the intent-to-treat population (n = 99) was -9.9 at the last on-therapy visit in the last-observation-carried-forward analysis and -14.0 at month 12 in the observed cases analysis. Conclusion High-dose desvenlafaxine (200-400 mg/d) was generally safe and effective in the long-term treatment of MDD.

Recovery and subsequent recurrence in patients with recurrent major depressive disorder

In contrast to "remission" from an episode of major depressive disorder (MDD), for which there is general agreement in the literature, the optimal definition of "recovery" from MDD is uncertain. Previous definitions of recovery have used inconsistent thresholds for symptom severity and duration of wellness. To address the effects of duration and degree of recovery from an episode of MDD on recurrence risk, and the impact of maintenance antidepressant treatment on recurrence, we analyzed 258 patients from a randomized, double-blind study of outpatients with recurrent MDD. All patients had responded to 8½ months of venlafaxine extended release and were subsequently randomized to receive venlafaxine ER or placebo during 2 consecutive 12-month maintenance phases. Four definitions of recovery were used to evaluate recovery rates and time to recurrence: (1) 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D(17)) total score ≤3 with duration ≥120 days; (2) HAM-D(17) ≤3 with duration ≥56 days; (3) HAM-D(17) ≤7 with duration ≥120 days; and (4) HAM-D(17) ≤7 with duration ≥56 days. Recovery definitions using lower symptom severity and longer duration thresholds produced lower rates of recurrence. Patients on placebo were more likely to have a recurrence than patients on venlafaxine ER, with hazard ratio (HR) ranging from 2.5 among patients who recovered by the most relaxed criteria (definition 4), to 5.3 among patients who recovered by the most stringent criteria (definition 1). We conclude that protection against recurrence derives from the degree and duration of recovery, particularly for patients maintained on antidepressant medication.

Studies of long-term use of antidepressants: how should the data from them be interpreted?

Depression is a recurrent illness in which afflicted individuals have an increased risk for recurrence as a function of a greater number of previous episodes. Consequently, prevention of future episodes is central to improving the prognosis. The current recommendation is to use antidepressants over prolonged periods of time to prevent further episodes of depression. However, the database for this practice is limited and can be interpreted in multiple ways. Review of the relevant literature was performed. MEDLINE and PubMed databases were searched from inception to 5 September 2011 for randomized, placebo-controlled trials of at least 18 months duration. After treatment of an acute depressive episode, antidepressants clearly prevent relapse back into the same depressive episode. This is demonstrated by an adequate number of randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled, 1-year continuation trials. The ability of antidepressants to prevent recurrence of future episodes is less clear. Randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled trials of 18 months or longer are infrequent - 18 studies were identified. While nearly all show that antidepressant continuation is superior to placebo in preventing resurgence of depressive symptoms, nearly all of the difference occurs in the first 6 months after randomization. This pattern strongly suggests that the apparent superiority of antidepressants may be due to (i) their ability to prevent recurrence, (ii) antidepressant withdrawal (characterized by depressive symptoms) in patients switched to placebo or (iii) a combination of these phenomena.

Solving the antidepressant efficacy question: effect sizes in major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND

Numerous reviews and meta-analyses of the antidepressant literature in major depressive disorders (MDD), both acute and maintenance, have been published, some claiming that antidepressants are mostly ineffective and others that they are mostly effective, in either acute or maintenance treatment.

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were to review and critique the latest and most notable antidepressant MDD studies and to conduct our own reanalysis of the US Food and Drug Administration database studies specifically analyzed by Kirsch et al.

METHODS

We gathered effect estimates of each MDD study. In our reanalysis of the acute depression studies, we corrected analyses for a statistical floor effect so that relative (instead of absolute) effect size differences were calculated. We also critiqued a recent meta-analysis of the maintenance treatment literature.

RESULTS

Our reanalysis showed that antidepressant benefit is seen not only in severe depression but also in moderate depression and confirmed a lack of benefit for antidepressants over placebo in mild depression. Relative antidepressant versus placebo benefit increased linearly from 5% in mild depression to 12% in moderate depression to 16% in severe depression. The claim that antidepressants are completely ineffective, or even harmful, in maintenance treatment studies involves unawareness of the enriched design effect, which, in that analysis, was used to analyze placebo efficacy. The same problem exists for the standard interpretation of those studies, although they do not prove antidepressant efficacy either, since they are biased in favor of antidepressants.

CONCLUSIONS

In sum, we conclude that antidepressants are effective in acute depressive episodes that are moderate to severe but are not effective in mild depression. Except for the mildest depressive episodes, correction for the statistical floor effect proves that antidepressants are effective acutely. These considerations only apply to acute depression, however. For maintenance, the long-term efficacy of antidepressants is unproven, but the data do not support the conclusion that they are harmful.

Blue again: perturbational effects of antidepressants suggest monoaminergic homeostasis in major depression

Some evolutionary researchers have argued that current diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder (MDD) may not accurately distinguish true instances of disorder from a normal, adaptive stress response. According to disorder advocates, neurochemicals like the monoamine neurotransmitters (serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine) are dysregulated in major depression. Monoamines are normally under homeostatic control, so the monoamine disorder hypothesis implies a breakdown in homeostatic mechanisms. In contrast, adaptationist hypotheses propose that homeostatic mechanisms are properly functioning in most patients meeting current criteria for MDD. If the homeostatic mechanisms regulating monoamines are functioning properly in these patients, then oppositional tolerance should develop with prolonged antidepressant medication (ADM) therapy. Oppositional tolerance refers to the forces that develop when a homeostatic mechanism has been subject to prolonged pharmacological perturbation that attempt to bring the system back to equilibrium. When pharmacological intervention is discontinued, the oppositional forces cause monoamine levels to overshoot their equilibrium levels. Since depressive symptoms are under monoaminergic control, this overshoot should cause a resurgence of depressive symptoms that is proportional to the perturbational effect of the ADM. We test this prediction by conducting a meta-analysis of ADM discontinuation studies. We find that the risk of relapse after ADM discontinuation is positively associated with the degree to which ADMs enhance serotonin and norepinephrine in prefrontal cortex, after controlling for covariates. The results are consistent with oppositional tolerance, and provide no evidence of malfunction in the monoaminergic regulatory mechanisms in patients meeting current diagnostic criteria for MDD. We discuss the evolutionary and clinical implications of our findings.

Comparing venlafaxine extended release and fluoxetine for preventing the recurrence of major depression: results from the PREVENT study

This secondary analysis from the Prevention of Recurrent Episodes of Depression with Venlafaxine Extended Release (ER) for Two Years (PREVENT) study compared the efficacy of venlafaxine ER and fluoxetine for the prevention of recurrence in patients with a history of recurrent major depressive disorder (MDD). Patients received double-blind treatment with venlafaxine ER (75-300 mg/d) or fluoxetine (20-60 mg/d) for 10 weeks (acute phase). Responders (17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HAM-D(17)] score ≤ 12 and ≥ 50% reduction from baseline) continued on the same treatment during the 6-month continuation phase. At the start of the first and second 12-month maintenance phases, venlafaxine ER responders were randomly assigned to receive venlafaxine ER or placebo, whereas patients receiving fluoxetine continued to receive fluoxetine throughout both maintenance phases. The primary outcome was time to recurrence (HAM-D(17) > 12, reduction in HAM-D(17) score ≤ 50% from acute baseline, and meeting DSM-IV criteria for a diagnosis of MDD), which was assessed using Kaplan-Meier estimates. Using the primary definition of recurrence, the estimated probability of not experiencing a recurrence was 71.9% for venlafaxine ER (n = 160) and 55.8% for fluoxetine (n = 99) across 24 months of maintenance treatment. For this primary analysis, the overall effect of venlafaxine ER treatment was not statistically significant (p = 0.399) compared with fluoxetine; however, a significant treatment-by-time interaction was observed (p = 0.034). No significant between-group differences were observed with any of the secondary efficacy variables. Venlafaxine ER and fluoxetine were similarly well tolerated across 2 years of maintenance-phase therapy.

A 10-month, open-label evaluation of desvenlafaxine in outpatients with major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND

The primary objective was to evaluate the long-term safety of desvenlafaxine (administered as desvenlafaxine succinate) during open-label treatment in adult outpatients with a primary DSM-IV diagnosis of major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHOD

Depressed adult outpatients (≥ 18 years) who had completed 8-week, double-blind therapy (desvenlafaxine, venlafaxine extended release, or placebo) in a phase 3 study of desvenlafaxine for MDD received up to 10 months of open-label treatment with flexible-dose desvenlafaxine (200 to 400 mg/d). Safety assessments included physical examination, measurement of weight and vital signs, laboratory determinations, and 12-lead electrocardiogram recordings. Adverse events (AEs) and discontinuations due to AEs were monitored throughout the trial. The primary efficacy outcome was mean change from baseline on 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) total score. The trial was conducted from August 2003 to March 2006.

RESULTS

The safety population included 1,395 patients who took at least 1 dose of open-label desvenlafaxine. Treatment-emergent AEs were reported by 1,238 of 1,395 patients (89%) during the open-label, on-therapy period. Treatment-emergent AEs reported by 10% or more patients were headache, nausea, hyperhidrosis, dizziness, dry mouth, insomnia, upper respiratory infection, nasopharyngitis, and fatigue. Adverse events were the primary reason for study discontinuation in 296 of 1,395 patients (21%). Ten patients (< 1%) had serious AEs that were considered possibly, probably, or definitely related to the study drug during the on-therapy period. No deaths occurred during the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Desvenlafaxine can be safely administered for up to 12 months. No new safety findings were observed in this study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01309542.

Psychosocial outcomes in patients with recurrent major depressive disorder during 2 years of maintenance treatment with venlafaxine extended release

BACKGROUND

Psychosocial outcomes from the Prevention of Recurrent Episodes of Depression with Venlafaxine ER for Two Years (PREVENT) study were evaluated.

METHODS

Adult outpatients with recurrent major depressive disorder (MDD) and response or remission following 6-month continuation treatment with venlafaxine extended release (ER) were randomized to receive venlafaxine ER or placebo for 1 year. Patients without recurrence on venlafaxine ER during year 1 were randomized to venlafaxine ER or placebo for year 2. Psychosocial functioning was assessed using the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire-Short Form (Q-LES-Q), Life Enjoyment Scale-Short Version (LES-S), Social Adjustment Scale-Self-Report (SAS-SR) total and individual factors, Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) (vitality, social functioning, and role function-emotional items), and Longitudinal Interval Follow-up Evaluation (LIFE).

RESULTS

At year 1 end, better overall psychosocial functioning was seen among patients randomly assigned to venlafaxine ER (n=129) vs placebo (n=129), with significant differences at end point on SF-36 role function-emotional, Q-LES-Q, and SAS-SR total, and work, house work, social/leisure, and extended-family factor scores (p≤0.05). At year 2 end, significant differences favored venlafaxine ER (n=43) vs placebo (n=40) on SF-36 vitality and role function-emotional, Q-LES-Q, LES-S, LIFE, and SAS-SR total, social/leisure, and extended-family factor scores (p≤0.05).

LIMITATIONS

Patients with chronic MDD or treatment resistance were excluded and long-term specialist care was a financial incentive for treatment compliance. Discontinuation-related adverse events may have compromised the integrity of the treatment blind.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with recurrent MDD, 2 years' maintenance therapy with venlafaxine ER may improve psychosocial functioning vs placebo.

Efficacy and tolerability of extended release quetiapine fumarate monotherapy as maintenance treatment of major depressive disorder: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE

evaluate the efficacy (time to recurrence of depressive symptoms) of once daily extended release quetiapine fumarate (quetiapine XR) as maintenance monotherapy treatment to prevent relapse for major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHODS

Time-to-event (maximum 52 weeks), double-blind, multicenter, randomized withdrawal, placebo-controlled study of quetiapine XR (50-300 mg/day) comprising four treatment phases: enrollment (up to 28 days), open-label run-in (4-8 weeks), open-label stabilization (12-18 weeks), and randomization (up to 52 weeks). Seven hundred and seventy-six patients stabilized on quetiapine XR were eligible for randomization (Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] score ≤12 and Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness [CGI-S] score ≤3); 391 received quetiapine XR and 385 received placebo (same dose as last open-label visit). Primary endpoint: time to recurrence of depressive event from randomization. Secondary outcomes included changes from randomization in MADRS total, CGI-S, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) global, and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) total scores. Adverse events were recorded throughout.

RESULTS

Risk of recurrence of depressive event was significantly (P<.001) reduced by 66% (HR=.34; 95% CI: .25, .46) in patients randomized to continue with quetiapine XR versus patients randomized to switch to placebo. During the randomized phase, quetiapine XR maintained improvements in secondary outcomes (P<.001 for all): MADRS (0.15 versus 2.03), CGI-S (-0.03 versus 0.23); PSQI global (0.06 versus 1.35), and HAM-A total score (0.20 versus 1.58), respectively. The most common AEs (>10% any group) during the randomized period were headache and insomnia.

CONCLUSIONS

Quetiapine XR maintenance therapy significantly reduced the risk of a depressive event in patients with MDD stabilized on quetiapine XR, with a safety and tolerability profile consistent with the known profile of quetiapine.

Duloxetine 60 mg/day for the prevention of depressive recurrences: post hoc analyses from a recurrence prevention study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy of duloxetine 60 mg/day in the prevention of depressive recurrence in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHODS

Patients having at least three episodes of MDD in the past 5 years received open-label (OL) duloxetine 60-120 mg/day for up to 34 weeks. Patients meeting response criteria were then randomised to either duloxetine or placebo for up to 52 weeks of double-blind maintenance treatment. Only patients taking duloxetine 60 mg/day during the OL phase, and randomised to either duloxetine (remained on 60 mg/day dose) or placebo, were included in this post hoc analysis. The primary outcome measure was time to recurrence of a major depressive episode. The 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD(17)) was used to evaluate depressive symptomatology. Global and physical functioning and pain were also assessed. Safety and tolerability were assessed via analysis of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), vital signs and weight.

RESULTS

A total of 124 patients were randomised to duloxetine 60 mg/day (n = 64) or placebo (n = 60). Time to depressive recurrence was significantly longer in duloxetine-treated patients compared with placebo-treated patients (p = 0.001). During the double-blind maintenance phase, 31.7% of placebo-treated patients experienced a depressive recurrence compared with 12.5% of duloxetine-treated patients (p = 0.004). The HAMD(17) total score and most of its subscales as well as the Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S), significantly worsened in the placebo group compared with the duloxetine 60 mg/day group. There were no significant differences between treatment groups in TEAEs, discontinuations because of adverse events, vital signs or weight.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with duloxetine 60 mg/day was associated with a longer time to depressive recurrence and a significantly lower recurrence rate compared with placebo.

Practical application of cure mixture model for long-term censored survivor data from a withdrawal clinical trial of patients with major depressive disorder

Background

Survival analysis methods such as the Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazards regression (Cox regression) are commonly used to analyze data from randomized withdrawal studies in patients with major depressive disorder. However, unfortunately, such common methods may be inappropriate when a long-term censored relapse-free time appears in data as the methods assume that if complete follow-up were possible for all individuals, each would eventually experience the event of interest.

Methods

In this paper, to analyse data including such a long-term censored relapse-free time, we discuss a semi-parametric cure regression (Cox cure regression), which combines a logistic formulation for the probability of occurrence of an event with a Cox proportional hazards specification for the time of occurrence of the event. In specifying the treatment's effect on disease-free survival, we consider the fraction of long-term survivors and the risks associated with a relapse of the disease. In addition, we develop a tree-based method for the time to event data to identify groups of patients with differing prognoses (cure survival CART). Although analysis methods typically adapt the log-rank statistic for recursive partitioning procedures, the method applied here used a likelihood ratio (LR) test statistic from a fitting of cure survival regression assuming exponential and Weibull distributions for the latency time of relapse.

Results

The method is illustrated using data from a sertraline randomized withdrawal study in patients with major depressive disorder.

Conclusions

We concluded that Cox cure regression reveals facts on who may be cured, and how the treatment and other factors effect on the cured incidence and on the relapse time of uncured patients, and that cure survival CART output provides easily understandable and interpretable information, useful both in identifying groups of patients with differing prognoses and in utilizing Cox cure regression models leading to meaningful interpretations.

Continuation treatment of major depressive disorder: is there a case for duloxetine?

Duloxetine is a serotonin–noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor with established efficacy for the short-term treatment of major depressive disorder. Efficacy in continuation treatment (greater than six months of continuous treatment) has been established from both open and placebo-controlled relapse prevention and comparative studies. Seven published studies were available for review and showed that in both younger and older populations (aged more than 65 years) the acute efficacy of duloxetine was maintained for up to one year. Response to treatment was based on accepted criteria for remission of depression and in continuation studies remission rates were greater than 70%. Comparative studies showed that duloxetine was superior to placebo and comparable to paroxetine and escitalopram in relapse prevention. Importantly a study of duloxetine in patients prone to relapse of major depressive disorder showed that the medication was more effective than placebo in this difficult to treat population. Side effects of duloxetine during continuation treatment were predictable on the basis of the known pharmacology of the drug. In particular there were no significant life-threatening events which emerged with continued use of the medication. On the other hand vigilance is required since the data base on which to judge very rare events is limited by the relatively low exposure to the drug. Duloxetine has established both efficacy and safety for continuation treatment but its place as a first-line treatment of relapse prevention requires further experience. In particular further comparative studies against established agents would be useful in deciding the place of duloxetine in therapy.

Desvenlafaxine for the prevention of relapse in major depressive disorder: results of a randomized trial

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of desvenlafaxine (administered as desvenlafaxine succinate) with placebo in reducing relapse rate in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHODS

This phase 3, multicenter, randomized trial included a 12-week, open-label (OL) treatment phase (intent-to-treat population, n = 575) followed by a 6-month, double-blind (DB) relapse prevention phase. Patients who responded to the OL treatment (17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression total score <or= 11) with desvenlafaxine (200-400 mg/d) were eligible to enter the DB phase. The primary efficacy end point was time until relapse (17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression total score >or= 16 at any visit, Clinical Global Impression-Improvement score >or= 6 at any visit, or discontinuation due to unsatisfactory response).

RESULTS

Patients receiving desvenlafaxine (n = 189) experienced significantly longer times to relapse of MDD versus patients receiving placebo (n = 185) during the DB period (log-rank test, P < 0.0001). The percentages of patients relapsing were 42% (78/185) and 24% (45/189) for placebo and desvenlafaxine, respectively (P < 0.001). The most common primary reason cited for discontinuation in the OL period was adverse events (19%), which consisted of nausea, dizziness, and insomnia. A total of 159 patients (42%) discontinued treatment during the DB period, including 101 placebo- (55%) and 58 desvenlafaxine-treated patients (31%). The most frequent adverse event reported as reason for treatment discontinuation in the DB period was depression, reported by 14 placebo- (8%) and 7 desvenlafaxine-treated patients (4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Desvenlafaxine effectively prevented relapse of MDD during 6 months of DB treatment in patients who had responded to 12 weeks of OL desvenlafaxine therapy.

Structural and cognitive deficits in remitting and non-remitting recurrent depression: a voxel-based morphometric study

Remission is the optimal outcome for major depressive disorder (MDD), but many patients do not improve appreciably despite treatment with medication. Treatment-resistant patients may experience deterioration in cognitive functions. Research has reported structural abnormalities in certain brain areas that may contribute to a poor clinical response. We hypothesize that there will be structural differences between patients able to achieve remission and those responding poorly to antidepressants. In the first voxel-based morphometric (VBM) study comparing remitting with non-remitting MDD, we investigated gray matter volume (GMV) differences between depressives to determine which structural abnormalities existed, and correlated these with diminished cognitive functioning. Of 44 adults with recurrent MDD, 19 had full remissions and 25 were non-remitters after a 6-week trial with antidepressant treatment. Remission was defined by 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores of </=7 for at least 2 weeks. VBM and neuropsychological studies were conducted on all patients and 25 healthy controls. The patients who remitted revealed milder visual attention deficits than did controls. This correlated with reduced GMV in the left postcentral gyrus (Brodmann area, or BA, 3) and the bilateral medial/superior frontal gyrus (BA 6). The non-remitting patients had reduced GMV in the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC, BA 9), and impaired acoustic and visual attention associated with GMV differences in several cortical regions, thalamus and amygdala/parahippocampal gyrus. These findings indicated that patients whose MDD remitted were cognitively and morphologically different from non-remitters. Voxel-based structural deficits in the left DLPFC may characterize a subgroup of people with recurrent MDD who respond poorly to antidepressants.

Relapse rates with long-term antidepressant drug therapy: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several long-term double-blind placebo controlled trials have shown prophylactic antidepressant therapy in unipolar depression. The goal of this work was to conduct a meta-analysis that would incorporate the most recent trials and evaluate their overall level of efficacy and relapse prevention over time.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive literature search. The extracted data from selected studies were used to construct a regression model and evaluate the effect of treatment, time on medication, severity of illness, age, gender, and number of previous episodes.

RESULTS

Across 11 maintenance treatment studies, the relapse rate was significantly different at 1 year for active drug (23%) versus placebo (51%). In addition, time on medication significantly affected the relapse rate.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic antidepressant drug therapy appears efficacious in preventing future relapses across a range of illness severity as well as age. More studies are needed to explore the effects of various acute antidepressant strategies and the direct influence of treatment resistance on relapse outcomes.

Why antidepressants are not antidepressants: STEP-BD, STAR*D, and the return of neurotic depression

The widely held clinical view of 'antidepressants' as highly effective and specific for the treatment of all types of depressive disorders is exaggerated. This sobering conclusion is supported by recent findings from the NIMH-sponsored STEP-BD and STAR*D projects. Antidepressants have limited short-term efficacy in unipolar depressive disorders and less in acute bipolar depression; their long-term prophylactic effectiveness in recurrent unipolar major depression remains uncertain, and is doubtful in recurrent bipolar depression. These limitations may, in part, reflect the excessively broad concept of major depression as well as unrealistic expectations of universal efficacy of drugs considered 'antidepressants.' Treatment-refractory depression may reflect failure to distinguish depressive conditions, particularly bipolar disorder, that are inherently less responsive to antidepressants. Antidepressants probably should be avoided in bipolar depression, mixed manic-depressive states, and in neurotic depression. Expectations of antidepressants for specific types of patients with symptoms of depression or anxiety require critical re-evaluation. A revival of the concept of neurotic depression would make it possible to identify patients with mild-to-moderate, chronic or episodic dysthymia and anxiety who are unlikely to benefit greatly from antidepressants. Diagnostic criteria for a revival of the concept of neurotic depression are proposed.

Assessing the efficacy of 2 years of maintenance treatment with venlafaxine extended release 75-225 mg/day in patients with recurrent major depression: a secondary analysis of data from the PREVENT study

The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term efficacy of venlafaxine extended release (ER) < or =225 mg/day in patients with recurrent major depressive disorder (MDD). In this double-blind trial, outpatients with recurrent MDD (N=1096) were randomized to 10 weeks of acute-phase treatment with venlafaxine ER (75-300 mg/day) or fluoxetine (20-60 mg/day) followed by a 6-month continuation phase and two consecutive 12-month maintenance phases. At the start of each maintenance period, venlafaxine ER responders were randomized to double-blind venlafaxine ER or placebo. In this analysis, data from responders to acute and continuation treatment were analyzed during the combined maintenance phases while receiving venlafaxine ER < or =225 mg/day. Failure to maintain response was defined as an increase in maintenance dose to 300 mg/day or recurrence. Differences were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods and compared using log-rank tests. Continuation-phase responders (n=114) receiving venlafaxine ER < or =225 mg/day comprised the analysis population (venlafaxine ER: n=55; placebo: n=59). The estimated probability for remaining well across 24 months of maintenance treatment was 67% for venlafaxine ER and 41% for placebo (P=0.007). Venlafaxine ER effectively maintained response at doses < or =225 mg/day for up to 2.5 years in patients with recurrent MDD. The findings are consistent with those of the full data set.

Pharmacotherapy of mood disorders

The mood disorders-primarily major depressive disorder and bipolar affective disorder-constitute one of the world's greatest public health problems and are associated with significant reductions in productivity, health, and longevity. In addition, people who suffer from these common illnesses, along with their families and loved ones, experience an incalculable toll on quality of life. Dating to the introduction of the first effective therapies for mood disorders in the late 1950s and 1960s, various types of pharmacotherapy have become a mainstay for the management of mood disorders, particularly more severe, chronic, and recurrent forms of depression and most forms of bipolar disorder. This review examines recent developments in the pharmacotherapy of both forms of mood disorder, comparing the newer antidepressants such as the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors with their predecessors (the monoamine oxidase inhibitors and tricyclic antidepressants) and likewise comparing the older standard for management of bipolar disorder, lithium, with newer classes of medications, such as a selected group of anticonvulsants and the atypical antipsychotics. Although these newer classes of medications have generally improved upon the earlier treatments in terms of better tolerability and safety, there are no universally effective pharmacologic treatments for mood disorders, and careful medical management of these medications is still warranted.

Maintenance therapy to prevent recurrence of depression: summary and implications of the PREVENT study

The need for maintenance therapy in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) is underscored by the high likelihood of recurrence after short-term treatment. Current recommendations include treatment to remission and long-term treatment to prevent relapse and recurrence. This article will summarize the design and results of the Prevention of Recurrent Episodes of Depression with Venlafaxine for Two Years (PREVENT) study, which have been published elsewhere. PREVENT evaluated venlafaxine extended release (ER) versus placebo in two 1-year maintenance phases for prevention of recurrence in patients with MDD who responded to acute and continuation therapy. Venlafaxine ER was effective in preventing long-term recurrence when compared with placebo, with a significant reduction in likelihood of recurrence and significantly longer time to recurrence after both 1 and 2 years of maintenance therapy. Recurrence rates in the first and second maintenance periods for patients receiving placebo were similar (42 vs 45%), but recurrence rates for patients receiving venlafaxine ER decreased dramatically (23 vs 8%). The PREVENT study adds to current understanding regarding the benefits of long-term antidepressant therapy in preventing recurrence.