Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Quantifying anxiety and depressive experiences permits individuals to calibrate where they are and monitor intervention-associated changes. eMindLog is a novel self-report measure for anxiety and depression that is grounded in psychology with an organizing structure based on neuroscience. OBJECTIVE:Our aim was to explore the psychometric properties of eMindLog in a nonclinical sample of subjects. METHODS:In a cross-sectional study of eMindLog, a convenience sample of 198 adults provided informed consent and completed eMindLog and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) as a reference. Brain systems (eg, negative and positive valence systems, cognitive systems) and their functional states that drive behavior are measured daily as emotions, thoughts, and behaviors. Associated symptoms, quality of life, and functioning are assessed weekly. eMindLog offers ease of use and expediency, using mobile technology across multiple platforms, with dashboard reporting of scores. It enhances precision by providing distinct, nonoverlapping description of terms, and accuracy through guidance for scoring severity. RESULTS:eMindLog daily total score had a Cronbach alpha of .94. Pearson correlation coefficient for eMindLog indexes for anxiety and sadness/anhedonia were r=.66 (P<.001) and r=.62 (P<.001) contrasted with the HADS anxiety and depression subscales respectively. Of 195 subjects, 23 (11.8%) had cross-sectional symptoms above the threshold for Generalized Anxiety Disorder and 29 (29/195, 14.9%) for Major Depressive Disorder. Factor analysis supported the theoretically derived index derivatives for anxiety, anger, sadness, and anhedonia. CONCLUSIONS:eMindLog is a novel self-measurement tool to measure anxiety and depression, demonstrating excellent reliability and strong validity in a nonclinical population. Further studies in clinical populations are necessary for fuller validation of its psychometric properties. Self-measurement of anxiety and depressive symptoms with precision and accuracy has several potential benefits, including case detection, tracking change over time, efficacy assessment of interventions, and exploration of potential biomarkers.

Background/UNASSIGNED:Bright light therapy has demonstrated efficacy and is an accepted treatment for seasonal depression. It has been suggested that bright light therapy may have efficacy in nonseasonal depressions. Also, there is evidence that bright light therapy may improve responsiveness to antidepressant pharmacotherapy. Data Sources/UNASSIGNED:We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, CINAHL, EMBASE, Scopus, and Academic OneFile for English-language literature published between January 1998 and April 2016, using the keywords bright light therapy AND major depression, bright light therapy AND depress*, bright light therapy AND bipolar depression, bright light therapy AND affective disorders, circadian rhythm AND major depression, circadian rhythm AND depress*, and circadian rhythm AND affective disorder. Study Selection and Data Extraction/UNASSIGNED:Studies that reported randomized trials comparing antidepressant pharmacotherapy with bright light therapy ≥ 5,000 lux for ≥ 30 minutes to antidepressant pharmacotherapy without bright light therapy for the treatment of nonseasonal depression were included. Studies of seasonal depression were excluded. Following review of the initial 112 returns, 2 of the authors independently judged each trial, applying the inclusionary and exclusionary criteria. Ten studies were selected as meeting these criteria. Subjects in these studies were pooled using standard techniques of meta-analysis. Results/UNASSIGNED:Ten studies involving 458 patients showed improvement using bright light therapy augmentation versus antidepressant pharmacotherapy alone. The effect size was similar to that of other accepted augmentation strategies, roughly 0.5. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Analysis of pooled data from randomized trials provides evidence for the efficacy of use of bright light therapy ≥ 5,000 lux for periods ≥ 30 minutes when used as augmentation to standard antidepressant pharmacotherapy in the treatment of major depressive disorder and bipolar depression without a seasonal pattern.

OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this post hoc analysis was to evaluate the incidence and timing of taper/posttherapy-emergent adverse events (TPAEs) following discontinuation of long-term treatment with desvenlafaxine (administered as desvenlafaxine succinate). METHOD/METHODS:This was a phase 4, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study conducted at 38 research centers within the United States between March 2010 and February 2011. Adult outpatients with major depressive disorder (MDD; DSM-IV-TR criteria) who completed 24 weeks of open-label treatment with desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups for the double-blind taper phase: desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d for 4 weeks (no discontinuation), desvenlafaxine 25 mg/d for 1 week followed by placebo for 3 weeks (taper), or placebo for 4 weeks (abrupt discontinuation). The primary endpoint, Discontinuation-Emergent Signs and Symptoms Scale (DESS) score over the first 2 weeks of the taper phase, was described previously. Secondary assessments included incidence and timing of TPAEs (any adverse event that started or increased in severity during the double-blind phase) and the percentage of patients who could not continue the taper phase due to discontinuation symptoms. The Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology Self-Report (QIDS-SR16) assessed MDD status. RESULTS:A total of 480 patients enrolled in the open-label phase; the full analysis set included 357 patients (taper, n = 139; abrupt discontinuation, n = 146; no discontinuation, n = 72). TPAEs occurred in all groups through week 4. The incidence of any TPAE was lower for taper versus abrupt discontinuation at week 1 (P < .001), similar at week 2, and lower for taper versus abrupt discontinuation at weeks 3 and 4 (P ≤ .034). The most common TPAEs (incidence ≥ 3%) in the taper group were nausea and headache (3% each) at week 1 and dizziness (5%) and headache (4%) at week 2. The most common TPAEs in the abrupt discontinuation group were dizziness (8%), headache (8%), nausea (4%), irritability (3%), and diarrhea (3%) at week 1 and headache (3%) at weeks 2 and 3. The most common TPAE in the no discontinuation group was nausea (6%) at week 2. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The overall incidence of any TPAE was lower in the taper versus abrupt discontinuation groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01056289.

The objective of this study was to determine whether the occurrence of discontinuation symptoms was equivalent for abrupt discontinuation versus 1-week taper to desvenlafaxine 25 mg/d after a 24-week treatment with desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d (administered as desvenlafaxine succinate) for major depressive disorder. Adult outpatients with major depressive disorder who completed the 24 weeks of open-label treatment with desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d were randomly assigned to no discontinuation (desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d), taper (desvenlafaxine 25 mg/d), or abrupt discontinuation (placebo) groups for the double-blind (DB) taper phase. The primary end point was Discontinuation-Emergent Signs and Symptoms (DESS) scale total score during the first 2 weeks of the DB phase. The null hypothesis that the absolute difference of greater than 2.5 in DESS scores between taper and abrupt discontinuation groups was tested by calculating the 95% 2-sided confidence interval on the mean difference between the 2 groups. Of the 480 patients enrolled in the open-label phase, 357 (≥1 postrandomization DESS record) were included in the primary analysis. Adjusted mean ± SE DESS scores were 4.1 ± 0.72 for no discontinuation (n = 72), 4.8 ± 0.54 for taper (n = 139), and 5.3 ± 0.52 for abrupt discontinuation (n = 146) groups. The difference in adjusted mean DESS total scores between the abrupt discontinuation and taper groups was 0.50 (95% confidence interval, -0.88 to 1.89) within the prespecified margin (±2.5) for equivalence. The number of patients who discontinued because of adverse events or discontinuation symptoms during the DB period was similar between the taper (2.8%) and abrupt discontinuation (2.1%) groups. These findings indicate that an abrupt discontinuation of desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d produces statistically equivalent DESS scores compared with the 1-week taper using 25 mg/d.

BACKGROUND:Relationships between brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), interleukin (IL)-6, and salivary cortisol and both depression severity and treatment response were assessed in patients enrolled in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of desvenlafaxine 50mg/d for MDD. METHODS:Outpatients with MDD were randomly assigned to 12weeks of double-blind treatment with desvenlafaxine 50mg/d or placebo (2:1). Baseline severity was assessed using the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D17); treatment response at week 12 was based on HAM-D17 total score and response and remission status. Saliva (cortisol) and blood (BDNF, IL-6) samples for biomarker assay were collected at baseline and week 12. Spearman correlations were calculated between the biomarkers at baseline, and between biomarkers and HAM-D17 total score at baseline. Logistic regression analyses were used to assess whether baseline biomarker levels predicted treatment response at week 12, with and without adjustment for baseline HAM-D17 score, treatment, and geographic region. Similarly, an analysis of covariance was used to assess whether baseline disease severity predicted biomarker change at week 12. RESULTS:A total of 427 patients who received ≥1 dose of study drug and had baseline and ≥1 on-therapy primary efficacy evaluations were included in the analysis. At baseline, there was a statistically significant although weak correlation between levels of IL-6 and BDNF (Spearman correlation coefficient [rs]=0.120; P=0.014), but no significant correlation between baseline biomarker levels and baseline HAM-D17 total score (absolute value of all rs, ≤0.061). Desvenlafaxine 50mg/d treatment significantly reduced HAM-D17 total score from baseline at week 12 compared with placebo (P=0.006), but the three potential biomarkers did not predict treatment effects. No significant correlations were observed between the change from baseline in any biomarker level and change in HAM-D17 total score at week 12, either overall, or in desvenlafaxine or placebo groups (absolute value of all rs, 0.003-0.196). Baseline levels of BDNF, IL-6, and salivary cortisol did not significantly predict response to treatment at week 12. Although median increase in BDNF was not significantly different between desvenlafaxine (13.7%) and placebo (5.7%) groups, the increase was significantly greater (33.4% vs 4.3%; P=0.003) in patients with more severe depression at baseline (HAM-D17>22) vs those with less severe depression (HAM-D17≤22). No similar findings were observed for IL-6 or salivary cortisol. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Weak or no relationships were observed at baseline between the potential biomarkers or between biomarkers and disease severity. While baseline biomarker level did not predict treatment response, improvement in BDNF was significantly greater among patients who were more severely depressed at baseline.

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the effects of sex and menopausal status on acute-, continuation-, and maintenance-phase treatment outcomes in patients with recurrent major depressive disorder (MDD). METHOD/METHODS:This was a secondary analysis of data from the Prevention of Recurrent Episodes of Depression With Venlafaxine for Two Years (PREVENT) trial, a multiphase, multicenter, double-blind study in which adult outpatients with recurrent MDD (by DSM-IV criteria) were randomly assigned to 10 weeks of acute-phase venlafaxine extended release (ER) (75-300 mg/d) or fluoxetine (20-60 mg/d). Patients achieving response or remission had 6 months of continuation-phase treatment. Responding or remitting patients in the venlafaxine ER group were randomly assigned to venlafaxine ER or placebo for 2 consecutive 12-month maintenance phases; fluoxetine-treated patients continued receiving fluoxetine. The outcome measures for this analysis were acute- and continuation-phase response and remission rates (as measured by the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale) and time to depression recurrence in the maintenance phases according to sex and menopausal status at baseline. RESULTS:The intent-to-treat population comprised 781 patients in the venlafaxine ER group (65% women) and 266 patients in the fluoxetine group (61% women); 64% of all women were premenopausal, and 25% were postmenopausal (5% perimenopausal; not analyzed). At acute-phase end, remission rates in the venlafaxine ER vs fluoxetine groups were 44% vs 47% in men, 51% vs 52% in women, 50% vs 52% in premenopausal women, and 52% vs 55% in postmenopausal women. At continuation-phase end, remission rates in the venlafaxine ER vs fluoxetine groups were 71% vs 74% in men, 72% vs 67% in women, 72% vs 69% in premenopausal women and 71% vs 63% in postmenopausal women. Response rates were consistent with these findings. Based on a Cox proportional hazards model, sex was not a significant predictor of recurrence during the first or second maintenance phase (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.233; P = .3712 and HR = 1.103; P = .8075, respectively), and neither was menopausal status at acute-phase baseline (HR = 0.941; P = .8234 and HR = 0.531; P = .2065, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:In this study of patients with recurrent MDD, treatment outcomes with venlafaxine ER and fluoxetine did not differ on the basis of sex or menopausal status. Our confidence in these findings is limited by the lack of a placebo arm during the acute and continuation phases and by the small sample sizes for subgroup analyses in the maintenance phases. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00046020.

OBJECTIVE:Evaluate the 8-week efficacy and safety of desvenlafaxine at the recommended dose of 50 mg/d in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women with major depressive disorder (MDD) based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision. METHOD/METHODS:This phase 4, multicenter, parallel-group, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted from June 30, 2010, to June 8, 2011. Patients received placebo or desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d (1:1 ratio; n = 217 in each group). The primary outcome measure was the change at week 8 in the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS17) total score. Secondary outcome measures included change in the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scale (CGI-I), the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), and the Visual Analog Scale-Pain Intensity (VAS-PI). RESULTS:At end point, compared to placebo, desvenlafaxine was associated with a significantly greater decrease in HDRS17 total scores (last-observation-carried-forward analysis; adjusted mean change from baseline -9.9 vs -8.1, respectively; P = .004) and significant improvements on the CGI-I (P < .001), MADRS (P = .002), SDS (P = .038), and VAS-PI (P < .001). Improvements on the SDS and VAS-PI reached significance by week 2. Desvenlafaxine was generally safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS:Short-term treatment with desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d was effective for the treatment of MDD in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women, with significant benefits on pain and functional outcomes evident as early as week 2. The safety and tolerability of desvenlafaxine were consistent with data in other populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01121484.

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.

Variability in placebo response greatly complicates the design, conduct, and interpretation of clinical trials of antidepressant medications. To identify factors that impact detection of antidepressant-placebo differences, we conducted a meta-analysis of all relevant phase II-IV clinical trials for major depressive disorder conducted by the manufacturer of venlafaxine and desvenlafaxine completed by March 2011. We examined 15 factors potentially relevant to trial outcomes, using the standardized mean difference on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D₁₇) score as the primary outcome. Thirty trials comprising 8933 patients were included. In univariate analyses, antidepressant efficacy (ie, drug vs placebo difference) was predicted most strongly (β=3.74, p=0.0002) by the proportion of patients in the trial enrolled from academic sites. Other factors predicting larger drug-placebo differences included lower participant completion rate, fewer post-baseline study visits, earlier year of study, and study drug (venlafaxine>desvenlafaxine). In multivariate meta-regression modeling, only the proportion of patients from academic sites maintained statistical significance as a predictor of drug-placebo separation for both HAM-D₁₇ continuous score change (β=2.24, p=0.034) and response rate (β=2.26, p=0.035). Including a higher proportion of academic sites may increase the ability to detect differences between active drug and placebo in clinical trials of major depressive disorder.

OBJECTIVE:To determine whether the combination of triiodothyronine (T3) plus sertraline at treatment initiation confers greater antidepressant efficacy than sertraline plus placebo in patients with major depressive disorder. METHOD/METHODS:Eight-week, double blind, randomized placebo controlled clinical trial of 153 adult outpatients between 18 and 60 years of age, with DSM-IV defined major depressive disorder. Patients were treated with sertraline flexibly adjusted for tolerability and in a double blind fashion with placebo or T3 (25 μg/day in week 1 and increasing to 50 μg/day in week 2). Response was defined categorically as 50% reduction and total score less than 15 in 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD-21) at week 8 and remission as HRSD-21 less than 8. RESULTS:There was no difference between treatment groups at final assessment; 65% of placebo and 61.8% of T3 treated subjects achieved response and 50.6% of placebo and 40.8% of T3 treated patients achieved remission. The mean daily dose at final assessment of sertraline and T3, respectively was 144.7 mg (± 48.7 mg) and 48.2 μg (± 7 μg). Median time to response did not differ between treatment groups. Baseline thyroid function tests did not predict response to sertraline treatment or T3 augmentation. CONCLUSIONS:These results do not support the routine use of T3 to enhance or accelerate onset of antidepressant response in patients with major depressive disorder.