Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:The antibiotic minocycline appears to promote neuroprotection through antioxidant and other mechanisms that may be relevant to the pathophysiology of bipolar disorder. The present study assessed the efficacy of minocycline in bipolar depression and examined the association between minocycline treatment and brain glutathione (GSH), an essential regulator of oxidative stress. METHOD/METHODS:H MRS) measures of cortical GSH within a voxel prescribed in the precuneus and aspects of the occipital cortex were obtained from a subset of patients (n=12) before and after treatment. RESULTS:The daily dose of minocycline at study end was 256mg (SD: 71mg). Treatment was associated with improvements in depression severity [MADRS score change: -14.6 (95% CI: -7.8 to -21.3)]. Ten patients (50%) were classified as responders based on a ≥50% reduction in MADRS score and 8 patients (40%) were classified as remitters (MADRS score ≤ 9). Higher baseline GSH levels were associated with greater improvement in MADRS score following treatment (ρ=0.51, p=0.05). Increases in GSH levels at study end were higher in non-responders than in responders (p=0.04). LIMITATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:Small sample size, lack of a placebo group. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Minocycline may be an effective adjuvant treatment for bipolar depression, particularly in patients with high baseline GSH levels. Further research is needed to evaluate the potential of minocycline in this population.

Background: Anxiety and trauma-related disorders are among the most prevalent and disabling medical conditions in the U.S., and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in particular exacts a tremendous public health toll. We examined the tolerability and anxiolytic efficacy of neuropeptide Y (NPY) administered via an intranasal route in patients with PTSD. Methods: Twenty-six individuals were randomized in a cross-over, single ascending dose study into one of five cohorts: 1.4mg (n=3), 2.8mg (n=6), 4.6mg (n=5), 6.8mg (n=6), and 9.6mg (n=6). Each individual was dosed with NPY or placebo on separate treatment days one week apart in random order under double-blind conditions. Assessments were conducted at baseline and following a trauma script symptom provocation procedure subsequent to dosing. Occurrence of adverse events represented the primary tolerability outcome. The difference between treatment conditions on anxiety as measured by the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) immediately following the trauma script represented the principal efficacy outcomes. Results: Twenty-four individuals completed both treatment days. NPY was well tolerated up to and including the highest dose. There was a significant interaction between treatment and dose; higher doses of NPY were associated with a greater treatment effect, favoring NPY over placebo on BAI score (F1,20=4.95, p=0.038). There was no significant interaction for STAI score. Conclusions: Our study suggests that a single dose of NPY is well tolerated up to 9.6 mg, and may be associated with anxiolytic effects. Future studies exploring the safety and efficacy of NPY in stress-related disorders are warranted. The reported study is registered at: http://clinicaltrials.gov (ID: NCT01533519).

BACKGROUND:Low-Field Magnetic Stimulation (LFMS) is a novel, non-invasive, sub-threshold neuromodulation technique, shown in preliminary studies to have immediate mood elevating effects in both unipolar and bipolar depressed patients. OBJECTIVE:We aimed to assess the antidepressant augmentation effects at 48 h of LFMS administered on two consecutive days compared to sham treatment in treatment resistant depression (TRD) subjects, using the Sequential Parallel Comparison Design (SPCD). METHODS:Eighty-four eligible subjects with TRD were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with LFMS 20 min/day for four days, sham treatment 20 min/day for four days, or sham treatment 20 min/day for 2 days followed by LFMS treatment 20 min/day for two days, using the pre-randomization version of the SPCD (randomization 1:1:1). The SPCD analyses used a repeated measures linear modeling approach with maximum likelihood estimation to use all available data, and using a 60-40 weighting of Stage 1 vs. 2 responses, with the primary outcome being measured after 2 and 4 days. RESULTS:Both primary and secondary outcome measures consistently showed no differences between LFMS-treated patients and those treated with sham, with the exception of a slight, non-significantly greater improvement than sham in the visual analogue scale (VAS) sad mood on LFMS-treated patients. LFMS treatment was relatively well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS:We did not observe a significantly greater, rapid efficacy of LFMS compared to sham therapy. Future studies need to examine the possible therapeutic effects of more intensive forms of LFMS, as other forms of neurostimulation typically require longer duration of exposure.

There is an urgent need for more effective treatments for major depressive disorder (MDD). Digital therapeutics, such as computerized cognitive-emotional training interventions, represent a promising new strategy for treating MDD. Here we report a replication of efficacy of a digital cognitive-emotional training intervention designed to enhance cognitive control for emotional information-processing. In a randomized, double-blind, controlled study design, fifty-one participants with MDD in a current major depressive episode were randomly assigned to participate in a digital cognitive-emotional training regimen (Emotional Faces Memory Task (EFMT); n= 28) involving 18 sessions over 6 weeks, or an active control condition (CT; n= 23) involving computerized working memory training. MDD symptoms were assessed weekly using a clinician-rated measure (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale; Ham-D); and neurocognition (working memory), at baseline and study outcome. Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of all participants randomized revealed a significantly greater reduction in MDD symptom severity (Ham-D) from baseline to outcome in the EFMT group (8.65 points) compared to the CT group (4.77 points) (F(6,205)= 3.23, p= .005, d= .46). Ten of 28 EFMT participants achieved clinical response (≥ 50% reduction in symptoms) compared to 4 of 23 in CT. Both groups exhibited similar, small improvements in working memory. This replicated the preliminary efficacy of a digital cognitive-emotional training approach for the treatment of MDD. EFMT may be a feasible and effective intervention strategy for MDD, but future studies to elucidate its mechanism of action are warranted. This study is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT: 01934491).

Background: The Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Survey (MBI-HSS) is the most commonly used instrument to assess burnout. Although various factors have been reported to influence its validity, the influence of major depressive disorder (MDD) has not been previously considered. We developed this study to investigate the influence of MDD on the psychometric properties of the MBI-HSS in nursing assistants. Results: From a sample of 521 nursing assistants, we found in those with MDD (n = 138, 24.56%) a degree of data misfit into the model, revealed by non-acceptable values for the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; 0.073; p = 0.004) and for the comparative fit index (CFI; 0.912), while in the non-MDD group these indices were acceptable and good, respectively, for RMSEA (0.048; p = 0.639) and for CFI (0.951). Also, we found higher coefficients of correlation among MBI-HSS factors and less items loading properly in their respective factors in the MDD subset, when compared to the non-MDD subset. For the total sample, while original 3-factor solution was an acceptable model, the bifactor model fitted data better. Conclusions: MDD may impair the construct validity of MBI-HSS subscales, by increasing measurement error and decreasing model fitness. Therefore, researchers and health professionals should be aware of potential changes in the psychometric properties of the MBI-HSS when applied in subjects with depression.

BACKGROUND: Medication and psychotherapy treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) provide insufficient benefit for many patients. Substantial preclinical and clinical data indicate abnormalities in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, including signaling by corticotropin-releasing factor, in the pathophysiology of PTSD. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, fixed-dose clinical trial evaluating the efficacy of GSK561679, a corticotropin-releasing factor receptor 1 (CRF1 receptor) antagonist in adult women with PTSD. The trial randomized 128 participants, of whom 96 completed the 6-week treatment period. RESULTS: In both the intent-to-treat and completer samples, GSK561679 failed to show superiority over placebo on the primary outcome of change in Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale total score. Adverse event frequencies did not significantly differ between GSK561679- and placebo-treated subjects. Exploration of the CRF1 receptor single nucleotide polymorphism rs110402 found that response to GSK561679 and placebo did not significantly differ by genotype alone. However, subjects who had experienced a moderate or severe history of childhood abuse and who were also GG homozygotes for rs110402 showed significant improvement after treatment with GSK561679 (n = 6) but not with placebo (n = 7) on the PTSD Symptom Scale-Self-Report. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this trial, the first evaluating a CRF1 receptor antagonist for the treatment of PTSD, combined with other negative trials of CRF1 receptor antagonists for major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and social anxiety disorder, suggest that CRF1 receptor antagonists lack efficacy as monotherapy agents for these conditions.

BACKGROUND: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluated dose-response relationships of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate when used as augmentation for major depressive disorder in individuals exhibiting inadequate responses to antidepressant monotherapy. METHODS: Eligible adults (18-65 years) were assigned to antidepressant monotherapy (escitalopram or venlafaxine extended-release) plus lisdexamfetamine dimesylate-matching placebo during an eight-week single-blind lead-in phase. Participants meeting randomization criteria were randomized (1:1:1:1:1) to eight weeks of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (10, 30, 50, or 70 mg) or placebo while maintaining antidepressant therapy. Dose-responses for changes from augmentation baseline to week 16/early termination for Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score (primary efficacy endpoint) and vital signs (systolic and diastolic blood pressure and pulse) were assessed using multiple comparisons procedures with modeling. RESULTS: For Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score change, no significant dose-responses were observed for any candidate dose-response curve (all p>0.10). In the dose-response evaluable population, least squares mean (90% confidence interval) treatment differences versus placebo for Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score change at week 16 were -1.4 (-3.9, 1.2), 0.1 (-2.5, 2.7), -0.7 (-3.4, 2.0), and -0.9 (-3.5, 1.6) with 10, 30, 50, and 70 mg lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, respectively. For all vital sign parameters, lisdexamfetamine dimesylate exhibited significant dose-responses for all candidate dose-response curves (all p<0.10), with increases observed as lisdexamfetamine dimesylate dose increased; a linear relationship provided the best fit. Mean+/-standard deviation changes from augmentation baseline for systolic and diastolic blood pressure and pulse at week 16/early termination were -0.7+/-9.90 and -0.3+/-7.24 mm Hg and 0.2+/-10.57 bpm with placebo and were 1.9+/-9.47 and 0.8+/-7.40 mm Hg and 3.6+/-9.74 bpm with lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (all doses combined). The safety and tolerability profile of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate was consistent with previous studies. CONCLUSIONS: Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate augmentation did not provide benefit over placebo in adults with inadequate responses to antidepressant monotherapy based on the assessed efficacy measures.

BACKGROUND: At least one-third of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) have treatment-resistant depression (TRD), defined as lack of response to two or more adequate antidepressant trials. For these patients, novel antidepressant treatments are urgently needed. METHODS: The current study is a phase IIa open label clinical trial examining the efficacy and tolerability of a combination of dextromethorphan (DM) and the CYP2D6 enzyme inhibitor quinidine (Q) in patients with TRD. Dextromethorphan acts as an antagonist at the glutamate N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor, in addition to other pharmacodynamics properties that include activity at sigma-1 receptors. Twenty patients with unipolar TRD who completed informed consent and met all eligibility criteria we enrolled in an open-label study of DM/Q up to 45/10mg by mouth administered every 12h over the course of a 10-week period, and constitute the intention to treat (ITT) sample. Six patients discontinued prior to study completion. RESULTS: There was no treatment-emergent suicidal ideation, psychotomimetic or dissociative symptoms. Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score was reduced from baseline to the 10-week primary outcome (mean change: -13.0+/-11.5, t19=5.0, p<0.001), as was QIDS-SR score (mean change: -5.9+/-6.6, t19=4.0, p<0.001). The response and remission rates in the ITT sample were 45% and 35%, respectively. LIMITATIONS: Open-label, proof-of-concept design. CONCLUSIONS: Herein we report acceptable tolerability and preliminary efficacy of DM/Q up to 45/10mg administered every 12h in patients with TRD. Future larger placebo controlled randomized trials in this population are warranted.