Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: Suicide is a devastating public health problem and very few biological treatments have been found to be effective for quickly reducing the intensity of suicidal ideation (SI). We have previously shown that a single dose of ketamine, a glutamate N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist, is associated with a rapid reduction in depressive symptom severity and SI in patients with treatment-resistant depression. METHOD: We conducted a randomized, controlled trial of ketamine in patients with mood and anxiety spectrum disorders who presented with clinically significant SI (n = 24). Patients received a single infusion of ketamine or midazolam (as an active placebo) in addition to standard of care. SI measured using the Beck Scale for Suicidal Ideation (BSI) 24 h post-treatment represented the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale--Suicidal Ideation (MADRS-SI) score at 24 h and additional measures beyond the 24-h time-point. RESULTS: The intervention was well tolerated and no dropouts occurred during the primary 7-day assessment period. BSI score was not different between the treatment groups at 24 h (p = 0.32); however, a significant difference emerged at 48 h (p = 0.047). MADRS-SI score was lower in the ketamine group compared to midazolam group at 24 h (p = 0.05). The treatment effect was no longer significant at the end of the 7-day assessment period. CONCLUSIONS: The current findings provide initial support for the safety and tolerability of ketamine as an intervention for SI in patients who are at elevated risk for suicidal behavior. Larger, well-powered studies are warranted.

OBJECTIVE: People with bipolar disorder are at high risk of suicide, but no clinically useful scale has been validated in this population. The aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties in bipolar disorder of the 7- and 12-item versions of the Concise Health Risk Tracking Self-Report (CHRT-SR), a scale measuring suicidal ideation, suicidal behavior, and associated symptoms. METHODS: The CHRT was administered to 283 symptomatic outpatients with bipolar I or II disorder who were randomized to receive lithium plus optimized personalized treatment (OPT), or OPT without lithium in a six month longitudinal comparative effectiveness trial. Participants were assessed using structured diagnostic interviews, clinician-rated assessments, and self-report questionnaires. RESULTS: The internal consistency (Cronbach alpha) was 0.80 for the 7-item CHRT-SR and 0.90 for the 12-item CHRT-SR with a consistent factor structure, and three independent factors (current suicidal thoughts and plans, hopelessness, and perceived lack of social support) for the 7-item version. CHRT-SR scores are correlated with measures of depression, functioning, and quality of life, but not with mania scores. CONCLUSIONS: The 7- and 12-item CHRT-SR both had excellent psychometric properties in a sample of symptomatic subjects with bipolar disorder. The scale is highly correlated with depression, functioning, and quality of life, but not with mania. Future research is needed to determine whether the CHRT-SR will be able to predict suicide attempts in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Anhedonia represents a core symptom of major depression and may be a potential marker for melancholia. However, current understanding of this construct in depressive sub-types is limited. METHOD: Participants were recruited from the Black Dog Institute (Sydney) and Massachusetts General Hospital (Boston). Diagnostic groups were derived on the basis of agreement between clinician and DSM-IV diagnosis from structured interviews. Currently depressed unipolar melancholic, non-melancholic and healthy control participants were administered a probabilistic reward task (PRT) to assess a behavioural correlate of anhedonia-blunted reward-based learning. Self-reported measures of anhedonia, approach and avoidance motivation were completed by the Sydney sample. RESULTS: Relative to healthy controls and non-melancholic participants, melancholic depressed participants had reduced response bias, highlighting blunted reward learning. Moreover, although non-melancholic participants were characterized by a delayed response bias, melancholic depressed participants failed to develop a bias throughout blocks. Response bias showed no associations with self-report measures of hedonic tone in depressed participants. Positive associations were observed between response bias, approach and avoidance motivation in non-melancholic participants only. LIMITATIONS: Possible medication, fatigue and anxiety effects were not controlled; small sample sizes; inclusion criteria may have excluded those with severe melancholia and led to underestimation of group differences. CONCLUSIONS: Melancholia is characterised by a reduced ability to modulate behaviour as a function of reward, and the motivational salience of rewarding stimuli may differ across depressive sub-types. Results support the view that melancholia is a distinct sub-type. Further exploration of reward system functioning in depressive sub-types is warranted.

OBJECTIVES: Few prospective studies examine the impact of ethnicity or race on outcomes with lithium for bipolar disorder. This exploratory study examines differences in lithium response and treatment outcomes in Hispanics, African Americans, and non-Hispanic whites with bipolar disorder in the Lithium Treatment Moderate Dose Use Study (LiTMUS). METHODS: LiTMUS was a six-site randomized controlled trial of low-dose lithium added to optimized treatment (OPT; personalized, evidence-based pharmacotherapy) vs. OPT alone in outpatients with bipolar disorder. Of 283 participants, 47 African Americans, 39 Hispanics, and 175 non-Hispanic whites were examined. We predicted minority groups would have more negative medication attitudes and higher attrition rates, but better clinical outcomes. RESULTS: African Americans in the lithium group improved more on depression and life functioning compared to whites over the 6 month study. African Americans in the OPT only group had marginal improvement on depression symptoms. For Hispanics, satisfaction with life did not significantly improve in the OPT only group, in contrast to whites and African Americans who improved over time on all measures. Attitudes toward medications did not differ across ethnic/racial groups. CONCLUSIONS: African Americans show some greater improvements with lithium than non-Hispanic whites, and Hispanics showed more consistent improvements in the lithium group. The impact of low-dose lithium should be studied in a larger sample as there may be particular benefit for African Americans and Hispanics. Given that the control group (regardless of ethnicity/race) had significant improvements, optimized treatment may be beneficial for any ethnic group.

BACKGROUND: Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) customarily uses high-field electromagnets to achieve therapeutic efficacy in Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). Low-field magnetic stimulation also may be useful for treatment of MDD, with fewer treatment-emergent adverse events. OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS: To examine efficacy, safety, and tolerability of low-field magnetic stimulation synchronized to an individual's alpha frequency (IAF) (synchronized TMS, or sTMS) for treatment of MDD. METHODS: Six-week double-blind sham-controlled treatment trial of a novel device that used three rotating neodymium magnets to deliver sTMS treatment. IAF was determined from a single-channel EEG prior to first treatment. Subjects had baseline 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HamD17) >/= 17. RESULTS: 202 subjects comprised the intent-to-treat (ITT) sample, and 120 subjects completed treatment per-protocol (PP). There was no difference in efficacy between active and sham in the ITT sample. Subjects in the PP sample (N = 59), however, had significantly greater mean decrease in HamD17 than sham (N = 60) (-9.00 vs. -6.56, P = 0.033). PP subjects with a history of poor response or intolerance to medication showed greater improvement with sTMS than did treatment-naive subjects (-8.58 vs. -4.25, P = 0.017). Efficacy in the PP sample reflects exclusion of subjects who received fewer than 80% of scheduled treatments or were inadvertently treated at the incorrect IAF; these subgroups failed to separate from sham. There was no difference in adverse events between sTMS and sham, and no serious adverse events attributable to sTMS. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that sTMS may be effective, safe, and well tolerated for treating MDD when administered as intended.