Quetiapine monotherapy for bipolar depression

Bipolar depression is more common, disabling, and difficult-to-treat than the manic and hypomanic phases that define bipolar disorder. Unlike the treatment of so-called “unipolar” depressions, antidepressants generally are not indicated as monotherapies for bipolar depressions and recent studies suggest that -even when used in combination with traditional mood stabilizers – antidepressants may have questionable value for bipolar depression. The current practice is that mood stabilizers are initiated first as monotherapies; however, the antidepressant efficacy of lithium and valproate is modest at best. Within this context the role of atypical antipsychotics is being evaluated. The combination of olanzapine and the antidepressant fluoxetine was the first treatment to receive regulatory approval in the US specifically for bipolar I depression. Quetiapine was the second medication to be approved for this indication, largely as the result of two pivotal trials known by the acronyms of BOLDER (BipOLar DEpRession) I and II. Both studies demonstrated that two doses of quetiapine (300 mg and 600 mg given once daily at bedtime) were significantly more effective than placebo, with no increased risk of patients switching into mania. Pooling the two studies, quetiapine was effective for both bipolar I and bipolar II depressions and for patients with (and without) a history of rapid cycling. The two doses were comparably effective in both studies. Although the efficacy of quetiapine monotherapy has been established, much additional research is necessary. Further studies are needed to more fully investigate dose-response relationships and comparing quetiapine monotherapy to other mood stabilizers (lithium, valproate, and lamotrigine) in bipolar depression, both singly and in combination. Head-to-head studies are needed comparing quetiapine to the olanzapine-fluoxetine combination. Longer-term studies are needed to confirm the persistence of response and to better gauge effects on metabolic profiles across months of therapy. A prospective study of patients specifically seeking treatment for rapid cycling and those with a history of treatment-emergent affective shifts also is needed. Despite the caveats, as treatment guidelines are revised to incorporate new data, the efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine monotherapy must be given serious consideration

Analysis of potentially predictive factors of efficacy of adjunct extended-release quetiapine fumarate in patients with major depressive disorder

Identification of predictors of treatment response in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) may facilitate improved disease management. Data were pooled from two 6-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of extended-release quetiapine (quetiapine XR; 150 or 300 mg/day) as adjunct to ongoing antidepressant therapy. Effects of psychiatric history and baseline demographic and disease characteristics on efficacy outcomes (Week 6 Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] total score reduction) were evaluated in population subgroups (quetiapine XR both doses pooled, n = 616; placebo, n = 303). Baseline Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) score and previous depressive episodes on Week 6 MADRS total score change, and baseline MADRS individual item scores on Week 6 change in CGI-Improvement score, were also evaluated. No major differences between responders and non-responders to quetiapine XR were observed for patient characteristics or demographic and disease characteristics. No suggestion of a predictive association was found between baseline CGI-S score, number of depressive episodes, and baseline MADRS item scores and efficacy outcomes. These analyses showed no major differences between responders and non-responders, and no predictive association between the parameters assessed and efficacy outcomes for adjunct quetiapine XR in patients with MDD and an inadequate response to prior antidepressant therapy

ORIGINAL ARTICLES Can’t Shake that Feeling: Event-Related fMRI Assessment of Sustained Amygdala Activity in Response to Emotional Information in Depressed Individuals

individuals engage in prolonged elaborative processing of emotional information. A computational neural network model of emotional information processing suggests this process involves sustained amygdala activity in response to processing negative features of information. This study examined whether brain activity in response to emotional stimuli was sustained in depressed individuals, even following subsequent distracting stimuli. Methods: Seven depressed and 10 never-depressed individuals were studied using event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging during alternating 15-sec emotional processing (valence identification) and nonemotional processing (Sternberg memory) trials. Amygdala regions were traced on high-resolution structural scans and coregistered to the functional data. The time course of activity in these areas during emotional and nonemotional processing trials was examined. Results: During emotional processing trials, never-depressed individuals displayed amygdalar responses to all stimuli, which decayed within 10 sec. In contrast, depressed individuals displayed sustained amygdala responses to negative words that lasted throughout the following nonemotional processing trials (25 sec later). The difference in sustained amygdala activity to negative and positive words was moderately related to self-reported rumination. Conclusions: Results suggest that depression is associated with sustained activity in brain areas responsible for coding emotional features. Biol Psychiatry 2002;51

Parsing Heterogeneity in the Brain Connectivity of Depressed and Healthy Adults During Positive Mood

There is well-known heterogeneity in affective mechanisms in depression that may extend to positive affect. We used data-driven parsing of neural connectivity to reveal subgroups present across depressed and healthy individuals during positive processing, informing targets for mechanistic intervention

Impact of Reproductive Status and Age on Response of Depressed Women to Cognitive Therapy

Previous research suggests that reproductive hormones are potential affective modulators in mood disorders and may influence response to antidepressant medications. To our knowledge, there are no data on relationships between hormonal status and response to psychotherapy for recurrent major depressive disorder (MDD)

Divergent Relationship of Depression Severity to Social Reward Responses Among Patients With Bipolar Versus Unipolar Depression

Neuroimaging studies of mood disorders demonstrate abnormalities in brain regions implicated in reward processing. However, there is a paucity of research investigating how social rewards affect reward circuit activity in these disorders. Here, we evaluated the relationship of both diagnostic category and dimensional depression severity to reward system function in bipolar and unipolar depression. In total, 86 adults were included, including 24 patients with bipolar depression, 24 patients with unipolar depression, and 38 healthy comparison subjects. Participants completed a social reward task during 3T BOLD fMRI. On average, diagnostic groups did not differ in activation to social reward. However, greater depression severity significantly correlated with reduced bilateral ventral striatum activation to social reward in the bipolar depressed group, but not the unipolar depressed group. In addition, decreased left orbitofrontal cortical activation correlated with more severe symptoms in bipolar depression, but not unipolar depression. These differential dimensional effects resulted in a significant voxelwise group by depression severity interaction. Taken together, these results provide initial evidence that deficits in social reward processing are differentially related to depression severity in the two disorders

Quetiapine monotherapy in bipolar II depression: combined data from four large, randomized studies

BackgroundDespite being present in up to 1% of the population, few controlled trials have examined the efficacy of treatments for bipolar II depression. Pooled data are presented from four placebo-controlled studies (BOLDER I [5077US/0049] and II [D1447C00135]; EMBOLDEN I [D1447C00001] and II [D1447C00134]) that evaluated the efficacy of quetiapine monotherapy for depressive episodes in patients with bipolar II disorder.MethodsAll studies included an 8-week, double-blind treatment phase in which patients were randomly assigned to treatment with quetiapine 300 mg/day, quetiapine 600 mg/day, or placebo. Outcome measures included the change from baseline in MADRS total score at week 8, effect sizes, and MADRS response and remission rates.Results and discussionImprovements in mean MADRS total scores from baseline to week 8 were significantly greater with quetiapine 300 and 600 mg/day (&minus;15.58 [n&thinsp;=&thinsp;283] and &minus;14.88 [n&thinsp;=&thinsp;289]; p&thinsp;&lt;&thinsp;0.001) compared with placebo (&minus;11.61 [n&thinsp;=&thinsp;204]). The MADRS effect sizes were 0.44 for quetiapine 300 mg/day and 0.47 for 600 mg/day (p&thinsp;&lt;&thinsp;0.001 vs placebo). Significantly higher proportions of patients receiving quetiapine, at both doses, than placebo-treated patients achieved response and remission at week 8 (p&thinsp;&lt;&thinsp;0.01). Common adverse events associated with quetiapine (both doses) included dry mouth, somnolence, sedation, dizziness, and headache. Rates of mania and hypomania were similar for quetiapine and placebo. Quetiapine monotherapy demonstrated significant efficacy compared with placebo and was generally well tolerated in the treatment of bipolar II depression.<br /

Comparing sensitivity to change using the 6-item versus the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale in the GUIDED randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Previous research suggests that the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D17) is less sensitive in detecting differences between active treatment and placebo for major depressive disorder (MDD) than is the HAM-D6 scale, which focuses on six core depression symptoms. Whether HAM-D6 shows greater sensitivity when comparing two active MDD treatment arms is unknown. METHODS: This post hoc analysis used data from the intent-to-treat (ITT) cohort (N = 1541) of the Genomics Used to Improve DEpression Decisions (GUIDED) trial, a rater- and patient-blinded randomized controlled trial. GUIDED compared combinatorial pharmacogenomics-guided care with treatment as usual (TAU) in patients with MDD. Percent of symptom improvement, response rate and remission rate from baseline to week 8 were evaluated using both scales. Analyses were performed for the full cohort and for the subset of patients who at baseline were taking medications predicted by the test to have moderate or significant gene-drug interactions. A Mokken scale analysis was conducted to compare the homogeneity of HAM-D17 with that of HAM-D6. RESULTS: At week 8, the guided-care arm demonstrated statistically significant benefit over TAU when the HAM-D6 (∆ = 4.4%, p = 0.023) was used as the continuous measure of symptom improvement, but not when using the HAM-D17 (∆ = 3.2%, p = 0.069). Response rates increased significantly for guided-care compared with TAU when evaluated using both HAM-D6 (∆ = 7.0%, p = 0.004) and HAM-D17 (∆ = 6.3%, p = 0.007). Remission rates also were significantly greater for guided-care versus TAU using both measures (HAM-D6 ∆ = 4.6%, p = 0.031; HAM-D17 ∆ = 5.5%, p = 0.005). Patients in the guided-care arm who at baseline were taking medications predicted to have gene-drug interactions showed further increased benefit over TAU at week 8 for symptom improvement (∆ = 7.3%, p = 0.004) response (∆ = 10.0%, p = 0.001) and remission (∆ = 7.9%, p = 0.005) using HAM-D6. All outcomes showed continued improvement through week 24. Mokken scale analysis demonstrated the homogeneity and unidimensionality of HAM-D6, but not of HAM-D17, across treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: The HAM-D6 scale identified a statistically significant difference in symptom improvement between combinatorial pharmacogenomics-guided care and TAU, whereas the HAM-D17 did not. The demonstrated utility of pharmacogenomics-guided treatment over TAU as detected by the HAM-D6 highlights its value for future biomarker-guided trials comparing active treatment arms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02109939. Registered 10 April 2014

Improving cost-effectiveness and access to cognitive behavior therapy for depression: providing remote-ready, computer-assisted psychotherapy in times of crisis and beyond

Introduction. There is growing evidence that computer-delivered or –assisted forms of cognitive-behavior therapy (CCBT) are helpful, but cost-effectiveness versus standard therapies is not well established. Objective. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a therapist-supported method for CCBT in comparison to standard CBT. Method. 154 drug-free MDD outpatients were randomly assigned to either 16 weeks of standard CBT (up to twenty 50-minute sessions) or CCBT using the Good Days Ahead program (including up to 5.5 hours of therapist contact). Outcomes were assessed at baseline, weeks 8 and 16, and at 3 and 6 months post-treatment. Economic analyses took into account the costs of services received and work/social role impairment. Results. In the context of almost identical efficacy, a form of CCBT that used only about onethird the amount of therapist contact as conventional CBT was highly cost-effective compared to conventional therapy and reduced cost of treatment by $928 per patient. Conclusions. A method of CCBT that blended internet-delivered modules and abbreviated therapeutic contact reduced the cost of treatment substantially without adversely affecting outcomes. Results suggest that use of this approach can more than double the access to CBT. Because clinician support in CCBT can be provided by telephone, videoconference, and/or email, this highly efficient form of treatment could be a major advance in remote treatment delivery