Search

Objective: Patients with bipolar disorder spend most of their clinical lifetime in the depressive phase of their illness. However, antidepressants are discouraged in the treatment of bipolar depression due to concerns over manic induction and drug ineffectiveness. Some reports suggest that monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) may be safe and effective compared to other antidepressants in treating bipolar depression. The present study compared the safety and effectiveness of MAOI therapy in patients with bipolar versus unipolar depression. Methods: Data were collected from approximately 2500 clinical research charts of patients treated with MAOI therapy at a university mood disorder clinic between 1983 and 2015. A mixed‐effects model was created with patient entered as the random effect. The model included the primary diagnosis (i.e., either unipolar or bipolar depression) and other clinical covariates as fixed‐effect predictors. Results: Patients with bipolar depression demonstrated lower post‐treatment clinical global impressions/severity scores versus patients with unipolar depression (p = 0.04). Neither group demonstrated a full syndromal manic or hypomanic episode. A higher proportion of patients with bipolar depression reported myoclonic tics and tremors, which may have resulted from concomitant lithium use. Amongst the covariates, only the number of prior antidepressant trials predicted poorer outcomes from MAOI therapy. Conclusion: MAOIs may be more effective—and as safe—for patients with bipolar depression versus unipolar depression. Future studies should explore this possible advantage using a larger sample size. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: An implicit assumption in the use of depressive severity measures to assess change during treatment, such as the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD), is that reductions from pre- to post-treatment that are equal to each other are of equal value. However, stakeholders' valuations of changes might depart substantially from this assumption. Method: Vignettes were constructed that reflected the six possible 1, 2, and 3-point reductions on five cognitive and four somatic symptoms derived from the HRSD. Former or currently depressed patients provided judgments of the importance of the symptom reductions. Mean importance ratings were modeled using symptom category and the pre/post-treatment combination. Differences were explored using the Tukey method. Results: Results indicated that mean ratings, from most to least important, were: Anxiety, Suicide, Depressed Mood, Work, and Guilt (the cognitive symptoms) followed by Somatic, Sleep, Appetite & Weight, and Retardation (the somatic symptoms). Participants valued reductions that resulted in posttreatment scores of zero more than expected, given the magnitude of the reductions. Conclusions: The value of reductions in symptoms captured by the HRSD, as judged by patients, appears to differ as a function of symptom category and the post-treatment score. Similar patterns might characterize other measures of depression severity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Within mental health, approaches to determine whether a patient experienced "meaningful" change from treatment have predominantly involved imposing thresholds on three types of metrics derived from assessments of symptom severity: end score (posttreatment score), absolute change (pre- minus posttreatment score), and proportion of change. However, none of these approaches have considered input from the consumer. This study examined correspondences between various reductions from pre- to posttreatment symptom severity levels and patients' judgments of satisfaction with change. Former or currently depressed patients were asked to provide judgments of their satisfaction reflected in vignettes that used descriptions from the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. Judgments from 108 female participants were fit using four metrics: end score, absolute change, proportion of change, and the combination of end score and absolute change. Akaike information criteria (AICs) and Akaike weights were used to determine the best-fitting model. Cutoffs were calculated for the five levels of satisfaction with change. Proportion of change best accounted for variation in the patients' ratings. For "slightly … ," "somewhat … ," "moderately … ," and "very … ," the proportions of reduction that corresponded with each of these ratings of satisfaction were, respectively: 17%, 39%, 62%, and 84%. Our a priori level of satisfaction (between "somewhat" and "moderately") corresponded to a 50% reduction in pretreatment severity. This study may provide services some insight into their female patients' satisfaction with change from treatment for depression using only the proportion of reduction from pretreatment severity. A similar procedure could be applied to other diagnostic groups, as well as other constructs that attend to the patient's perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Antidepressants may be less effective in treatment-resistant depression (TRD). In this exploratory study, we examined the widely held hypothesis that monoamine oxidase inhibitor (MAOI) therapy may be superior to tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) therapy for TRD. We also examined the influence of the number of prior treatment trials on TCA versus MAOI effectiveness in TRD.Methods: Data were retrospectively extracted from approximately 2,500 treatment charts of patients with TRD who were attending a university mood disorder clinic between 1983 and 2015. Hierarchical linear modeling was used to examine the efficacy of drug class on outcome as well as the interaction between drug class and the number of prior antidepressant trials.Results: 147 treatment outcome observations were made from 94 unipolar, depressed patients who either received TCA (N = 47) or MAOI (N = 100) monotherapy for TRD. For patients unresponsive to at least one prior trial, drug class significantly predicted end-of-treatment CGI/S scores, with TCAs showing worse (i.e., higher) end-of-treatment CGI/S scores relative to MAOI therapy (b = 1.04, t = 4.98, p < 0.0001). When examining the interaction between drug class and the number of prior antidepressant trials, the interaction effect was significant (b = -0.50, t = -2.43, p = 0.02); however, the advantage for MAOI versus TCA therapy decreases with more prior, failed, antidepressant trials.Conclusion: Results suggest that MAOIs may be more effective than TCAs for early stage TRD. This difference in effectiveness between MAOIs and TCAs diminished as the number of prior treatment trials increased. However, the TCA sample size was limited and the analysis was retrospective with non-randomized conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]