3 research outputs found
A comparison of nefazodone, the cognitive behavioral-analysis system of psychotherapy, and their combination for the treatment of chronic depression
Background
Patients with chronic forms of major depression are difficult to treat, and the relative efficacy of medications and psychotherapy is uncertain.
Methods
We randomly assigned 681 adults with a chronic nonpsychotic major depressive disorder to 12 weeks of outpatient treatment with nefazodone (maximal dose, 600 mg per day), the cognitive behavioral-analysis system of psychotherapy (16 to 20 sessions), or both. At base line, all patients had scores of at least 20 on the 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (indicating clinically significant depression). Remission was defined as a score of 8 or less at weeks 10 and 12. For patients who did not have remission, a satisfactory response was defined as a reduction in the score by at least 50 percent from base line and a score of 15 or less. Raters were unaware of the patients’ treatment assignments.
Results
Of the 681 patients, 662 attended at least one treatment session and were included in the analysis of response. The overall rate of response (both remission and satisfactory response) was 48 percent in both the nefazodone group and the psychotherapy group, as compared with 73 percent in the combined-treatment group (P
Conclusions
Although about half of patients with chronic forms of major depression have a response to short-term treatment with either nefazodone or a cognitive behavioral-analysis system of psychotherapy, the combination of the two is significantly more efficacious than either treatment alone
ABCB1 Genetic Effects on Antidepressant Outcomes: A Report From the iSPOT-D Trial
Objective: The ABCB1 gene encodes P-glycoprotein, which limits brain concentrations of certain antidepressants. ABCB1 variation has been associated with antidepressant efficacy and side effects in small-sample studies. Cognitive impairment in major depressive disorder predicts poor treatment outcome, but ABCB1 genetic effects in patients with cognitive impairment are untested. The authors examined ABCB1 genetic variants as predictors of remission and side effects in a large clinical trial that also incorporated cognitive assessment. Method: The authors genotyped 10 ABCB1 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in 683 patients with major depressive disorder treated for at least 2 weeks, of whom 576 completed 8 weeks of treatment with escitalopram, sertraline, or extendedrelease venlafaxine (all substrates for P-glycoprotein) in a large randomized, prospective, pragmatic trial. Antidepressant efficacy was assessed with the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Rated (QIDS-SR), and side effects with a rating scale for frequency, intensity, and burden of side effects. General and emotional cognition was assessed with a battery of 13 tests. Results: The functional SNP rs10245483 upstream from ABCB1 had a significant effect on remission and side effect ratings that was differentially related to medication and cognitive status. Common homozygotes responded better and had fewer side effects with escitalopram and sertraline. Minor allele homozygotes responded better and had fewer side effects with venlafaxine, with the better response most apparent for patients with cognitive impairment. Conclusions: The functional polymorphism rs10245483 differentially affects remission and side effect outcomes depending on the antidepressant. The predictive power of the SNP for response or side effects was not lessened by the presence of cognitive impairment
Depression Subtypes in Predicting Antidepressant Response: A Report From the iSPOT-D Trial
Objective: The study aims were 1) to describe the proportions of individuals who met criteria for melancholic, atypical, and anxious depressive subtypes, as well as subtype combinations, in a large sample of depressed outpatients, and 2) to compare subtype profiles on remission and change in depressive symptoms after acute treatment with one of three antidepressant medications. Method: Participants 18-65 years of age (N=1,008) who met criteria for major depressive disorder were randomly assigned to 8 weeks of treatment with escitalopram, sertraline, or extendedrelease venlafaxine. Participants were classified by subtype. Those who met criteria for no subtype or multiple subtypes were classified separately, resulting in eight mutually exclusive groups. A mixed-effects model using the intent-to-treat sample compared the groups' symptom score trajectories, and logistic regression compared likelihood of remission (defined as a score #5 on the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report). Results: Thirty-nine percent of participants exhibited a pure-form subtype, 36% met criteria for more than one subtype, and 25% did not meet criteria for any subtype. All subtype groups exhibited a similar significant trajectory of symptom reduction across the trial. Likelihood of remission did not differ significantly between subtype groups, and depression subtype was not a moderator of treatment effect. Conclusions: There was substantial overlap of the three depressive subtypes, and individuals in all subtype groups responded similarly to the three antidepressants. The consistency of these findings with those of the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression trial suggests that subtypes may be of minimal value in antidepressant selection