BACKGROUND: Immune dysregulation can play a role in depression pathophysiology, and immunological antagonists can improve depressive symptoms in treatment-resistant bipolar depression (TRD) patients according to studies.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the anti-depressant effects of the anti-inflammatory drug, pentoxifylline (PTX) in TRD bipolar I/II adult subjects.
METHODS: This 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial of 60 participants was conducted at Hawler Psychiatric Hospital and Private Clinic in Erbil, Iraq. Participants were confirmed as being qualified for bipolar I/II depression based on DSM-5 criteria. Data were analyzed using modified intent-to-treat analysis.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the two groups in Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression-17 (HAM-D-17) scores (χ2=1.9, P =.48) or a significant time × treatment interaction (χ2=7.1, P=.54). Nevertheless, a significant effect of time was observed with both groups\' reduction in HAM-D-17 scores from the start to the endpoint (χ2= 2.11, P=.002). Besides, a significant time × treatment × CRP interaction was found (χ2=3.1, P=0.016), where there was more reduction in HAM-D-17 score in PTX-treated subjects with CRP> 7.1 mg/L. The response rate difference between PTX and the placebo group did not reach a significance level (χ2=0.84, p=0.43). Furthermore, serum concentrations of TNF-α, CRP, and IL-6 significantly reduced at week 12 in the PTX group (P=.007,.04, and <.001, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: The current proof of concept study found that in terms of overall anti-depressant effectiveness in bipolar patients with TRD, PTX is not superior to placebo. However, it may improve depressive mood in a subpopulation of subjects with a higher pretreatment inflammatory profile.

BACKGROUND: Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has been shown to improve response and remission in patients with treatment resistant depression. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of two bilateral rTMS protocols with different protocols in patients with treatment resistant depression and comorbid severe anxiety.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study involving 67 patients who underwent two different bilateral TMS protocols and who met the specified eligibility criteria was conducted. Group 1 received stimulation with 85% RMT intermittent theta burst (iTBS) in the left DLPFC + 120% RMT (1 Hz) in the right DLPFC. Group 2 received stimulation with 100% RMT (iTBS) in the left DLPFC + 110% RMT (1 Hz) in the left DLPFC.
RESULTS: After the magnetic stimulation treatment, 55% (n=22) achieved response to depression symptoms in group 1 and 62% (n=18) in group 2. Remission of depression symptoms was achieved in 13% in group 1 (n=5) and 24% in group 2 (n=7). There were no significant differences between the two protocols after TMS CONCLUSIONS: Different bilateral protocol parameters in individuals undergoing TMS may have an impact on symptom response and remission. Further studies with larger sample sizes are needed.

BACKGROUND: Persistent depressive disorder (PDD) is prevalent and debilitating. For patients with PDD, psychiatric rehabilitation using self-management interventions is advised as the next therapeutic step after multiple unsuccessful treatment attempts. The \"Patient and Partner Education Program for All Chronic Diseases\" (PPEP4All) is a brief, structured self-management program that focuses on functional recovery for patients and their partners/caregivers. In chronic somatic disorder populations, PPEP4All has already been shown to be clinically effective. We examined whether PPEP4All adapted for PDD (PPEP4All-PDD, nine weekly group or individual sessions) is also clinically effective for adults/elderly with PDD and their partners/caregivers compared to care-as-usual (CAU) in specialized mental healthcare.
METHODS: In this mixed-method multicenter pragmatic randomized controlled trial, 70 patients with PDD and 14 partners/caregivers were allocated to either PPEP4All-PDD (patients, n = 37; partners/caregivers, n = 14) or CAU (patients, n = 33; partners/caregivers, not included) and completed questionnaires at 0, 3, 6, and 12 months regarding depressive symptoms, psychopathology, psychosocial burden, mental resilience, and happiness/well-being. Qualitative data were collected regarding treatment satisfaction. Data were analyzed using mixed model analyses and an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach.
RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in any outcome regarding clinical effectiveness between PPEP4All-PDD and CAU. Subgroup analysis for depressive symptoms did not show any interaction effect for any subgroup. Although 78% of participants recommended PPEP4All-PDD, there was no difference in treatment satisfaction between PPEP4All-PDD (score = 6.6; SD = 1.7) and CAU (score = 7.6; SD = 1.2), p = 0.06.
CONCLUSIONS: Although depressive symptoms did not improve relative to CAU, this only confirmed that treatment for patients with treatment-resistant PDD should move from symptom reduction to functional recovery. Also, functional recovery may be reflected in other outcomes than psychosocial burden, such as self-empowerment, in patients with treatment-resistant PDD. Future research on PPEP4All-PDD could focus on a longer-term program and/or online program that may also be offered earlier in the treatment process as an empowerment intervention.  TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register Identifier NL5818. Registered on 20 July 2016 https://clinicaltrialregister.nl/nl/trial/20302.

BACKGROUND: Due to its rapid antidepressant effect, ketamine has recently been clinically translated for people with treatment-resistant depression. However, its cognitive profile remains unclear, particularly with repeated and higher doses. In the present study, we report the cognitive results from a recent large multicentre randomised controlled trial, the Ketamine for Adult Depression Study (KADS).
METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel group, multicentre phase 3 trial study we investigated potential cognitive changes following repeated treatment of subcutaneous racemic ketamine compared to an active comparator, midazolam, over 4 weeks, which involved two cohorts; Cohort 1 involved a fixed dose treatment protocol (0.5 mg/kg ketamine), Cohort 2 involved a dose escalation protocol (0.5-0.9 mg/kg) based on mood outcomes. Participants with treatment-resistant Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) were recruited from 7 mood disorder centres and were randomly assigned to receive ketamine (Cohort 1 n = 33; Cohort 2 n = 53) or midazolam (Cohort 1 n = 35; Cohort 2 n = 53) in a 1:1 ratio. Cognitive measurements were assessed at baseline and at the end of randomised treatment.
RESULTS: Results showed that in Cohort 1, there were no differences between ketamine and midazolam in cognitive outcomes. For Cohort 2, there was similarly no difference between conditions for cognitive outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: The study included two Cohorts with different dosing regimes.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings support the cognitive safety of repeated fixed and escalating doses at least in the short-term in people with treatment resistant MDD.

BACKGROUND: Treatment resistant depression (TRD) is considered when an individual fails to respond to two or more different antidepressants in adequate doses, duration and with adequate adherence within the same major depressive episode.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the clinical profiles of TRD patients through data from electronic healthcare records and compare characteristics and treatment pathways of ethnic minority and non-minority patients in UK.
METHODS: A retrospective, longitudinal, observational cohort study of patients with TRD was carried out in 10 Mental Health NHS Foundation Trusts in the Akrivia Health/UK Clinical Record Interactive Search (CRIS) system network. The CRIS system was used as a means of analysing de-identified data across 3.2 million anonymised patients\' records.
RESULTS: 10,048 patient records were deemed eligible for this study, of which 20.2 % of patients identified as BAME, and 79.8 % patients identified as White. Overall, around half of the patients were likely to be prescribed an antidepressant within 2 months of the MDD diagnosis. White patients were prescribed more antidepressants than the BAME group (p < 0.001), with a significant effect size for comorbidities.
CONCLUSIONS: The nature of the data source limited the ability to filter for short treatment durations as clinicians did not often record concrete medication end-dates in clinical note fields.
CONCLUSIONS: There are significant differences in care pathways between ethnic groups in relation to TRD patients. It is vital to understand factors causing these potential clinical biases and increase awareness and education to deliver the most effective treatments for TRD in ethnic minority patients.

UNASSIGNED: Treatment resistant depression (TRD) affects 10-30% of patients with major depressive disorder. In 4-week trials, esketamine nasal spray (NS) was efficacious vs. placebo when both were initiated in addition to a new selective serotonin or serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor. However, comparison with an extended range of real-world treatments (RWT) is lacking.
UNASSIGNED: ICEBERG was an adjusted indirect treatment comparison using propensity score-based inverse probability weighting, performed on 6-month response and remission data from patients receiving esketamine NS plus oral antidepressant from the SUSTAIN-2 (NCT02497287; clinicaltrials.gov) study, compared with patients receiving other RWT from the European Observational TRD Cohort (EOTC; NCT03373253; clinicaltrials.gov) study. SUSTAIN-2 was a long-term open-label study of esketamine NS, while the EOTC was conducted at a time when esketamine NS was not available as RWT. Threshold and sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess how robust the primary analyses were.
UNASSIGNED: Patients receiving esketamine NS had a higher probability of 6-month response (49.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 45.6-53.9]) and remission (33.6% [95% CI 29.7-37.6]) vs. patients receiving RWT (26.4% [95% CI 21.5-31.4] and 18.2% [95% CI 13.9-22.5], respectively), according to rescaled average treatment effect among treated estimates. Resulting adjusted odds ratios (OR) and relative risk (RR) favoured esketamine NS over RWT for 6-month response (OR 2.756 [95% CI 2.034-3.733], p < 0.0001; RR 1.882 [95% CI 1.534-2.310], p < 0.0001) and remission (OR 2.276 [95% CI 1.621-3.196], p < 0.0001; RR 1.847 [95% CI 1.418-2.406], p < 0.0001). Threshold analyses suggested that differences between the two studies were robust, and results were consistent across extensive sensitivity analyses.
UNASSIGNED: ICEBERG supports that, at 6 months, esketamine NS has a substantial and significant benefit over RWT for patients with TRD. While results may be affected by unobserved confounding factors, threshold analyses suggested these were unlikely to impact the study conclusions.To view an animated summary of this publication, please click on the Supplementary video.

UNASSIGNED: The efficacy of esketamine nasal spray (NS) as a rapid-acting agent for treatment resistant depression (TRD) was demonstrated in comparisons with placebo, when both were given in addition to a newly initiated selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI)/serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI). How esketamine NS compares with commonly used real-world (RW) polypharmacy treatment strategies is not known.
UNASSIGNED: ICEBERG was an adjusted indirect treatment comparison that analysed data from SUSTAIN-2 (NCT02497287; clinicaltrials.gov), a long-term, open-label study of esketamine NS plus SSRI/SNRI, and the European Observational TRD Cohort (EOTC; NCT03373253; clinicaltrials.gov), an observational study of routine clinical practice. Data were compared between patients receiving esketamine NS (SUSTAIN-2) and those from the EOTC treated with polypharmacy treatment strategies, either combination or augmentation. Analyses were adjusted for potential confounders, using rescaled average treatment effect among treated estimates. Threshold analyses were conducted to assess potential impact of unmeasured confounders on the robustness of analyses where esketamine NS was found to be significantly superior. Sensitivity analyses were used to understand the impact of analysis method selection and data handling.
UNASSIGNED: Esketamine NS treatment resulted in a higher probability of 6-month response (49.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 45.6-53.9]) and remission (33.6% [95% CI 29.7-37.6]) versus RW polypharmacy (26.8% [95% CI 21.0-32.5] and 19.4%, [95% CI 14.2-24.6], respectively). Relative risk calculations showed esketamine NS was 1.859 (95% CI 1.474-2.345; p < 0.0001) times as likely to result in response and 1.735 (1.297-2.322; p = 0.0002) times as likely to result in remission versus RW polypharmacy at 6 months. Threshold and extensive sensitivity analyses supported that analyses of esketamine NS superiority were robust.
UNASSIGNED: ICEBERG supports esketamine NS being superior to current RW individualized polypharmacy strategies, including augmentation, with benefits extending beyond acute use, to improved chance of 6-month response and remission. While unobserved confounding factors may certainly impact results of an indirect comparison, threshold analysis supported a low likelihood of this affecting the conclusions.To view an animated summary of this publication, please click on the Supplementary video.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) contributes to suicide risk. Treating MDD effectively is considered a key suicide prevention intervention. Yet many patients with MDD do not respond to their initial medication and require a \'next-step\'. The relationship between next-step treatments and suicidal thoughts and behaviors is uncharted.
METHODS: The VA Augmentation and Switching Treatments for Depression trial randomized 1522 participants to one of three next-step treatments: Switching to Bupropion, combining with Bupropion, and augmenting with Aripiprazole. In this secondary analysis, features associated with lifetime suicidal ideation (SI) and attempts (SA) at baseline and current SI during treatment were explored.
RESULTS: Compared to those with SI only, those with lifetime SI + SA were more likely to be female, divorced, or separated, unemployed; and to have experienced more childhood adversity. They had a more severe depressive episode and were more likely to respond to \'next-step\' treatment. The prevalence of SI decreased from 46.5% (694/1492) at baseline to 21.1% (315/1492) at end-of-treatment. SI during treatment was associated with baseline SI; low positive mental health, more anxiety, greater severity and longer duration of current MDD episode; being male and White; and treatment with S-BUP or C-BUP as compared to A-ARI.
CONCLUSIONS: SI declines for most patients during next-step medication treatments. But about 1 in 5 experienced emergent or worsening SI during treatment, so vigilance for suicide risk through the entire 12-week acute treatment period is necessary. Treatment selection may affect the risk of SI.

UNASSIGNED: Among treatment-resistant depression (TRD), we identified anergic-anhedonic clinical presentations (TRAD) as putatively responsive to pro-dopaminergic strategies. Based on the literature, non-selective monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOI) and dopamine D2 receptor agonists (D2RAG) were sequentially introduced, frequently under the coverage of a mood stabilizer. This two-step therapeutic strategy will be referred to as the Dopaminergic Antidepressant Therapy Algorithm (DATA). We describe the short and long-term outcomes of TRAD managed according to DATA guidelines.
UNASSIGNED: Out of 52 outpatients with TRAD treated with DATA in a single expert center, 48 were included in the analysis [severity - QIDS (Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology) = 16 ± 3; episode duration = 4.1 ± 2.7 years; Thase and Rush resistance stage = 2.9 ± 0.6; functioning - GAF (Global Assessment of Functioning) = 41 ± 8]. These were followed-up for a median (1st - 3rd quartile) of 4 (1-9) months before being prescribed the first dopaminergic treatment and remitters were followed up 21 (11-33) months after remission.
UNASSIGNED: At the end of DATA step 1, 25 patients were in remission (QIDS <6; 52% [38-66%]). After DATA step 2, 37 patients were in remission (77% [65-89%]) to whom 5 patients with a QIDS score = 6 could be added (88% [78-97%]). Many of these patients felt subjectively remitted (GAF = 74 ± 10). There was a significant benefit to combining MAOI with D2RAG which was maintained for at least 18 months in 30 patients (79% [62-95%]).
UNASSIGNED: These results support TRAD sensitivity to pro-dopaminergic interventions. However, some clinical heterogeneities remain in our sample and suggest some improvement in the description of dopamine-sensitive form(s).

Major depression is a frequent condition which variably responds to treatment. In view of its high prevalence, the presence of treatment resistance in major depression significantly impacts on quality of life. Tailoring pharmacological treatment based on genetic polymorphisms is a current trend to personalizing pharmacological treatment in patients with major depressive disorders. Current guidelines for the use of genetic tests in major depression issued by the Clinical Pharmacogenomics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) are based on CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 polymorphisms which constitute the strongest evidence for pharmacogenomic guided treatment. There is evidence of increased clinical response to pharmacological treatment in major depression although largely in non-treatment resistant patients from Western countries. In this study, well characterised participants (N = 15) with complex, largely treatment resistant unipolar major depression were investigated, and clinical improvement was measured at baseline and at week-8 after the pharmacogenomics-guided treatment with the Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MÅDRS). Results suggested a statistically significant improvement (p = 0.01) of 16% at endpoint in the whole group and a larger effect in case of changes in medication regime (28%, p = 0.004). This small but appreciable effect can be understood in the context of the level of treatment resistance in the group. To our knowledge, this is the first study from the Middle East demonstrating the feasibility of this approach in the treatment of complex major depressive disorders.