Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: The development of new antidepressant drugs has reached a plateau. There is an unmet need for faster, better, and safer medications, but as placebo-response rates rise, effect sizes shrink, and more studies fail or are negative, pharmaceutical companies are increasingly reluctant to invest in new drug development because of the risk of failure. In the absence of an identifiable human pathophysiology that can be modeled in preclinical studies, the principal point of leverage to move beyond the present dilemma may be improving the information gleaned from well-designed proof-of-concept (POC) studies of new antidepressant drugs with novel central nervous system effects. With this in mind, a group of experts was convened under the auspices of the University of Arizona Department of Psychiatry and Best Practice Project Management, Inc. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-five experts in the study of antidepressant drugs from academia, government (U.S. Food and Drug Administration and National Institute of Mental Health), and industry participated. EVIDENCE/CONSENSUS PROCESS: In order to define the state of clinical trials methodology in the antidepressant area, and to chart a way forward, a 2-day consensus conference was held June 21-22, 2007, in Bethesda, Md., at which careful reviews of the literature were presented for discussion. Following the presentations, participants were divided into 3 workgroups and asked to address a series of separate questions related to methodology in POC studies. The goals were to review the history of antidepressant drug trials, discuss ways to improve study design and data analysis, and plan more informative POC studies. CONCLUSIONS: The participants concluded that the federal government, academic centers, and the pharmaceutical industry need to collaborate on establishing a network of sites at which small, POC studies can be conducted and resulting data can be shared. New technologies to analyze and measure the major affective, cognitive, and behavioral components of depression in relationship to potential biomarkers of response should be incorporated. Standard assessment instruments should be employed across studies to allow for future meta-analyses, but new instruments should be developed to differentiate subtypes and symptom clusters within the disorder that might respond differently to treatment. Better early-stage POC studies are needed and should be able to amplify the signal strength of drug efficacy and enhance the quality of information in clinical trials of new medications with novel pharmacologic profiles

BACKGROUND:Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is an effective anticonvulsant device and has shown antidepressant effects in chronic treatment resistant depression. Because the vagus nerve sends information to brain regions important in anxiety regulation (locus coeruleus, orbitofrontal cortex, insula, hippocampus and amygdala), this pathway might be involved in perceiving or manifesting various somatic and cognitive symptoms that characterize anxiety disorders. On the basis of this reasoning and reports of anxiolytic effects of VNS in patients treated for epilepsy and depression, we organized an open-label pilot acute trial of adjunctive VNS on top of stable medications, followed by long-term follow-up, to assess the safety and potential efficacy of VNS for patients with treatment resistant anxiety disorders. METHODS:Eleven adult outpatients with treatment resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), panic disorder (PD), or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) were recruited. Patients had failed several medication trials as well as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). All patients were rated with the Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) and the clinical global impressions improvement scale (CGI-I). Patients with OCD were also rated with the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS). Patients were maintained on their current psychotropic medications at fixed doses during the acute 12-week phase. Changes in medications and VNS stimulus parameters were allowed during the long-term follow-up. Response was defined as a 50% or greater improvement on the HAM-A for all patients and a 25% or greater improvement on the Y-BOCS for patients with OCD. RESULTS:Eleven patients were recruited. Seven patients had a primary diagnosis of OCD, two had PTSD, and one had PD. One OCD patient changed their mind and was never implanted. One patient with OCD withdrew consent before the end of the acute phase, so long-term results were available for nine patients. Three patients were acute responders, based on the HAM-A, and there was some improvement in anxiety ratings over time (with statistically significant improvements at 14 of 18 quarters during long-term follow-up). Of the seven patients with OCD who received stimulation, three were acute responders, based on the Y-BOCS, and there was some improvement in Y-BOCS scores over time (with statistically significant improvements at 7 of 18 quarters during long-term follow-up). VNS was relatively well tolerated. Four years after implantation, four patients (diagnoses two OCD, one PD, one PTSD) were still receiving VNS with continued and sustained improvement in anxiety scores compared with their baseline scores. CONCLUSIONS:These patients with treatment-resistant anxiety disorders generally tolerated VNS treatment, and there was evidence of acute and long-term improvement in some patients. These open data suggest that further double-blind studies assessing the VNS role in treating anxiety disorders, particularly OCD, may be warranted.

UNLABELLED:This report presents the rationale, design, and baseline sample characteristics for the REVAMP study. This project is a multisite clinical trial designed to evaluate the efficacy of augmenting state-of-the-art pharmacotherapy with psychotherapy in chronically depressed patients who fail to respond or respond incompletely to an initial trial of antidepressant medication. BACKGROUND:Chronic forms of major depression disorder (cMDD) are longitudinally continuous forms of major depressive disorder (MDD), and may account for a significant portion of the societal burden of disease associated with M D D. Antidepressant medications and depression-focused psychotherapies have been shown to be effective for cMDD, though the majority fail to achieve remission following an acute course of treatment. There is a pressing need to evaluate whether the outcomes obtained from a well implemented medication algorithm combined with depression-focused psychotherapy can significantly enhance outcomes for cMDD. RATIONALE/BACKGROUND:Although there is evidence for the effectiveness of depression-focused psychotherapy for the treatment of cMDD, this is the first prospective, randomized, controlled trial investigating psychotherapy as an augmentation strategy for patients with cMDD incompletely responsive to a trial of antidepressant medication. SPECIFIC AIMS/OBJECTIVE:The REVAMP study has three specific aims: first, to compare the efficacy of adding psychotherapy to a medication change versus changing medication alone in chronic depressives with partial response or nonresponse to an initial trial of antidepressant medication; second, to test efficacy of the Cognitive Behavioral Analysis System of Psychotherapy (CBASP) as an augmentation strategy by comparing it to Supportive Psychotherapy (SP); and third, to test a hypothesized mechanism of therapeutic action of CBASP by examining whether patients receiving CBASP exhibit significantly greater improvements in social problem solving than patients receiving adjunctive SP or continued medication alone. As a subsidiary aim, the study also compares the effects of the three randomized treatments on psychosocial outcomes. DESIGN/METHODS:The study involves two 12-week phases. During Phase 1, patients with cMDD receive antidepressant monotherapy selected according to an algorithm that takes into account their prior treatment history. Their pattern of response is evaluated, those with no response at 8 weeks or less than a full response at 12 weeks advance to Phase 2. At the beginning of Phase 2, patients who did not respond to the initial antidepressant monotherapy during Phase 1 are switched to the next medication in the pharmacotherapy algorithm and randomly assigned in a 2:2:1 ratio to one of three treatment cells: 16 sessions of either CBASP (40% of randomizations) or SP (40%) added to pharmacotherapy, or medication alone (20%) with no added psychotherapy. Similarly, patients achieving a partial response during Phase 1 have their initial medication augmented with a second antidepressant agent during Phase 2 and are randomly assigned to either CBASP, SP, or medication alone. Patients who achieve remission during Phase 1 are not randomized to Phase 2, but rather are monitored monthly for an additional 12 weeks. COMMENT/CONCLUSIONS:Recent sequential treatment studies have provided state-of-the-art knowledge about the need for multiple steps in order to achieve remission. The current study, therefore, provides an important next step in understanding the role of depression-focused psychotherapy in a treatment algorithm so essential in the management of difficult-to-treat depression such as chronic forms of major depression.

BACKGROUND:We evaluated the comparative efficacy and safety of venlafaxine extended release (ER) and fluoxetine in the acute and continuation phases of treatment. METHODS:In this multicenter, double-blind study, outpatients with recurrent unipolar major depression were randomly assigned to receive venlafaxine ER (75-300 mg/day; n = 821) or fluoxetine (20-60 mg/day; n = 275). After a 10-week acute treatment phase, responders entered a 6-month continuation phase of ongoing therapy with double-blind venlafaxine ER (n = 530) or fluoxetine (n = 185). In the acute phase, the primary outcome was response, defined as a 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) score < or =12 or > or =50% decrease from baseline; the secondary outcome was remission, defined as a HDRS score < or =7. In the continuation phase, the primary outcome was the proportion of patients who sustained response or remission. Secondary measures included time to onset of sustained response or remission (i.e., meeting criteria at two or more consecutive visits), relapse rates, and quality-of-life measures. RESULTS:At the acute treatment phase end point, response rates were 79% for both venlafaxine ER and fluoxetine; remission rates were 49% and 50% for venlafaxine ER and fluoxetine, respectively. In the continuation phase, response rates were 90% and 92%, and remission rates were 72% and 69% for venlafaxine ER and fluoxetine, respectively. Rates of sustained remission at the end of the continuation phase were 52% and 58% for venlafaxine ER and fluoxetine, respectively. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Venlafaxine ER and fluoxetine were comparably effective during both acute and continuation phase therapy.

BACKGROUND:Previous studies suggest that adjunctive modafinil treatment provides benefit for patients with depression with significant sleepiness and fatigue. METHODS:We conducted a multisite, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the treatment of major depression characterized by excessive sleepiness and fatigue, adding adjunctive modafinil or placebo to a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor from the beginning of treatment. Seventy-three of 90 consenting patients met all screening criteria to begin treatment with open-label selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor therapy and double-blind addition of either modafinil (100 mg/d for 1 week then 200 mg/d) or matching placebo for 6 weeks. RESULTS:Mixed-model analysis of the change in the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, the primary outcome measure, showed no difference between modafinil- and placebo-treated patients. However, the hypersomnia items on the 31-item Hamilton Depression Scale were significantly more improved with modafinil than placebo. The total 31-item Hamilton Depression Scale score was significantly better with modafinil than placebo at Weeks 4 and 5, but not at the final study visit. There was no difference in dropout rates caused by adverse events, but 2 patients in the modafinil-treated group developed new onset or worsening of suicidal ideation, leading to the trial being discontinued prematurely. CONCLUSIONS:Power to detect differences between modafinil and placebo was limited because of the premature discontinuation of the trial. Although modafinil did not show evidence of benefit over placebo on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, secondary measures suggested modafinil may have provided benefit for symptoms of excessive sleepiness in patients with depression.

OBJECTIVE:To report second-year results from the 2-year maintenance phase of a long-term study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of venlafaxine extended release (ER) in preventing recurrence of depression. METHOD/METHODS:Outpatients with recurrent unipolar depression (DSM-IV criteria; N = 1096) were randomly assigned in a 3:1 ratio to 10 weeks of treatment with venlafaxine ER or fluoxetine. Responders (17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HAM-D(17)] total score <or= 12 and >or= 50% decrease from baseline) entered a 6-month, double-blind continuation phase on the same medication. Continuation-phase responders were enrolled into maintenance treatment consisting of 2 consecutive 12-month phases. At the start of each maintenance phase, venlafaxine ER responders were randomly assigned to receive double-blind treatment with venlafaxine ER or placebo, and fluoxetine responders were continued for each period. The second 12-month maintenance phase compared the time to recurrence of depression with venlafaxine ER (75 to 300 mg/day) versus placebo as the primary efficacy measure. The primary definition of recurrence was a HAM-D(17) total score > 12 and < 50% reduction from baseline (acute phase) at 2 consecutive visits or at the last valid visit prior to discontinuation. The time to recurrence was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier methods and compared between the venlafaxine ER and placebo groups using log-rank tests. Secondary outcome measures included rates of response and remission (defined as HAM-D(17) </= 7). The study was conducted from December 2000 through July 2005. RESULTS:The cumulative probabilities of recurrence through 12 months in the venlafaxine ER (N = 43) and placebo (N = 40) groups were 8.0% (95% CI = 0.0 to 16.8) and 44.8% (95% CI = 27.6 to 62.0), respectively (p < .001). At month 12, using last-observation-carried-forward analysis, the rate of response or remission was significantly higher in the venlafaxine ER group (93%) than in the placebo group (63%; p = .002). Overall discontinuation rates were 28% and 63% in the venlafaxine ER and placebo groups, respectively. Adverse events were the primary reason for discontinuation for 1 patient (2%) in the venlafax-ine ER group and 4 (10%) in the placebo group. An analysis of the combined maintenance phases, which compared the risk of recurrence over 24 months for patients assigned to venlafaxine ER (N = 129) or placebo (N = 129) for the first maintenance phase, showed a significantly greater cumulative probability of recurrence through 24 months for the placebo group (47.3% [95% CI = 36.4 to 58.2]) than for the venlafaxine ER group (28.5% [95% CI = 18.3 to 38.7]; p = .005). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:In this study, an additional 12 months of maintenance therapy with venlafaxine ER was effective in preventing recurrence of depression in patients who had been responders to venlafaxine ER after acute (10 weeks), continuation (6 months), and initial maintenance (12 months) therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00046020 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To test the long-term efficacy and safety of venlafaxine extended-release (ER) in preventing recurrence in patients with major depression. METHOD/METHODS:This multiple-phase study, entitled "Prevention of Recurrent Episodes of Depression With Venlafaxine for Two Years" (PREVENT), was conducted from December 2000 through July 2005 in patients with recurrent unipolar depression (DSM-IV) who were initially randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with venlafaxine ER (75 mg/day to 300 mg/day) or fluoxetine (20 mg/day to 60 mg/day) for 10 weeks of acute treatment. Responders then received 6 months of continuation treatment. Those who remained responders were then enrolled into a 12-month maintenance period. Venlafaxine ER responders were randomly assigned to receive double-blind treatment with venlafaxine ER or placebo. Fluoxetine responders were not randomly assigned but continued taking fluoxetine in order to maintain the blind during the maintenance study. Time to recurrence of depression (17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression total score > 12 and < 50% reduction from acute phase baseline) with venlafaxine ER versus that of placebo were compared. RESULTS:The efficacy evaluable sample consisted of 129 patients in each group. The mean daily dose of venlafaxine ER was 224.7 mg (SD = 66.7). The cumulative probability of recurrence through 12 months, based on the primary definition, was 23.1% (95% CI = 15.3 to 30.9) for venlafaxine ER and 42.0% (95% CI = 31.8 to 52.2) for placebo (p = .005, log-rank test). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Patients who had been successfully treated with venlafaxine ER during acute and continuation therapy were significantly less likely to experience recurrence with venlafaxine ER than with placebo over a 12-month maintenance treatment period. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00046020.

Tiagabine, a selective gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) reuptake inhibitor was evaluated for the treatment of patients with social anxiety disorder (SAD). Adults with SAD received open-label tiagabine 4-16 mg per day for 12 weeks. Intent-to-treat data are available for 54 patients with improvement demonstrated in Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale, Clinician Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) and -Improvement (CGI-I), Social Phobia Inventory, and Sheehan Disability Scale scores. In all, 40.7% (22/54) of the intent to treat sample and 63.0% (17/27) of the completer sample were considered CGI responders (CGI-I score of one or two). Tiagabine was generally well tolerated. Results of this pilot study suggest that tiagabine may be an option for the treatment of patients with SAD. Larger, controlled studies are required to fully elucidate the potential of tiagabine for the treatment of SAD.

OBJECTIVE:The authors describe the use of dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) in treating borderline personality disorder during psychiatry residency, and assess the status of DBT education within psychiatry residencies in the United States. METHOD/METHODS:The authors present a patient with borderline personality disorder treated by a resident using DBT, along with perspectives from the resident's supervisors. Additionally, self-report surveys inquiring about the attitudes and experiences of residency directors and PGY-4 residents regarding DBT were sent to program directors with available e-mail addresses on FREIDA online. RESULTS:The DBT method employed by the resident had to be modified to fit the constraints of a residency program. The patient in therapy had a tumultuous course, ultimately resulting in the discontinuation of treatment. Survey results suggested an underemphasis on the education and use of DBT during residency, though the strength of this conclusion is limited by the small proportion of surveys returned. CONCLUSIONS:Achieving the efficacy of DBT-based treatment of borderline personality disorder reported in the literature in the setting of a residency program is challenging. Greater exposure to DBT during residency may increase residents' skills in using the technique and the likelihood that they will use it after residency.