Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of antidepressant augmentation with lamotrigine in patients with treatment-resistant depression: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:This study reports a clinical trial evaluating lamotrigine safety and efficacy as an antidepressant augmentation agent in treatment-resistant depression, therefore adding more empirical evidence to the limited number of studies on the use of lamotrigine. METHOD:A double-blind pilot study was conducted between March 2004 and January 2006 with 34 nonbi-polar, nonpsychotic patients who had DSM-IV major depressive disorder and were resistant to at least 2 anti-depressants. The subjects were taking antidepressant therapy and were randomly assigned to receive placebo or lamotrigine as an adjunct therapy for 8 weeks. They were evaluated on a biweekly basis in order to assess the efficacy and the safety of the drug. Efficacy was measured with the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scale. Response was defined as a decrease of at least 50% from baseline on the MADRS and a final score ? 2 on the CGI. Safety was assessed by keeping record of treatment-emergent adverse events. RESULTS:The results of the adjunct treatment with lamotrigine did not reveal a significant difference according to the MADRS (p = .45). No differences between the 2 treatment groups were revealed by the repeated-measures analysis of variance or by the analysis based on the CGI (p = .45). More than 50% of the patients had been treated with at least 3 different anti-depressants. The most frequent adverse events were nausea, rash, and dyspepsia in the lamotrigine group and dizziness and headache in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS:In this study, although it was safe, lamotrigine was not found to be an efficient augmentation agent in treatment-resistant depression. Small sample size, higher chronicity, and refractoriness may be related to treatment failure. TRIAL REGISTRATION:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00652171.

SUBMITTER: Santos MA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2446484 | biostudies-literature | 2008

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and safety of antidepressant augmentation with lamotrigine in patients with treatment-resistant depression: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study.

Santos Milena Antunes MA Rocha Fábio Lopes FL Hara Cláudia C

Primary care companion to the Journal of clinical psychiatry 20080101 3

<h4>Objective</h4>This study reports a clinical trial evaluating lamotrigine safety and efficacy as an antidepressant augmentation agent in treatment-resistant depression, therefore adding more empirical evidence to the limited number of studies on the use of lamotrigine.<h4>Method</h4>A double-blind pilot study was conducted between March 2004 and January 2006 with 34 nonbi-polar, nonpsychotic patients who had DSM-IV major depressive disorder and were resistant to at least 2 anti-depressants. T ...[more]

PMID: 18615166

Similar Datasets

Project description:Treatment-resistant major depression is common and potentially life-threatening in elderly people, in whom little is known about the benefits and risks of augmentation pharmacotherapy. We aimed to assess whether aripiprazole is associated with a higher probability of remission than is placebo.We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial at three centres in the USA and Canada to test the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole augmentation for adults aged older than 60 years with treatment-resistant depression (Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] score of ?15). Patients who did not achieve remission during a pre-trial with venlafaxine extended-release (150-300 mg/day) were randomly assigned (1:1) to the addition of aripiprazole (target dose 10 mg [maximum 15 mg] daily) daily or placebo for 12 weeks. The computer-generated randomisation was done in blocks and stratified by site. Only the database administrator and research pharmacists had knowledge of treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was remission, defined as an MADRS score of 10 or less (and at least 2 points below the score at the start of the randomised phase) at both of the final two consecutive visits, analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00892047.From July 20, 2009, to Dec 30, 2013, we recruited 468 eligible participants, 181 (39%) of whom did not remit and were randomly assigned to aripiprazole (n=91) or placebo (n=90). A greater proportion of participants in the aripiprazole group achieved remission than did those in the placebo group (40 [44%] vs 26 [29%] participants; odds ratio [OR] 2·0 [95% CI 1·1-3·7], p=0·03; number needed to treat [NNT] 6·6 [95% CI 3·5-81·8]). Akathisia was the most common adverse effect of aripiprazole (reported in 24 [26%] of 91 participants on aripiprazole vs 11 [12%] of 90 on placebo). Compared with placebo, aripiprazole was also associated with more Parkinsonism (15 [17%] of 86 vs two [2%] of 81 participants), but not with treatment-emergent suicidal ideation (13 [21%] of 61 vs 19 [29%] of 65 participants) or other measured safety variables.In adults aged 60 years or older who do not achieve remission from depression with a first-line antidepressant, the addition of aripiprazole is effective in achieving and sustaining remission. Tolerability concerns include the potential for akathisia and Parkinsonism.National Institute of Mental Health, UPMC Endowment in Geriatric Psychiatry, Taylor Family Institute for Innovative Psychiatric Research, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the Campbell Family Mental Health Research Institute.

Project description:Cognitive impairment in late-life depression is a core feature of the illness.To test whether donepezil hydrochloride and antidepressant therapy is superior to placebo and antidepressant therapy in improving cognitive performance and instrumental activities of daily living and in reducing recurrences of depression over 2 years of maintenance treatment.Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled maintenance trial.University clinic.One hundred thirty older adults aged 65 years and older with recently remitted major depression.Random assignment to maintenance antidepressant pharmacotherapy and donepezil or to maintenance antidepressant pharmacotherapy and placebo.Global neuropsychological performance, cognitive instrumental activities of daily living, and recurrent depression.Donepezil and antidepressant therapy temporarily improved global cognition (treatment × time interaction, F?,??? = 3.78; P = .03), but effect sizes were small (Cohen d = 0.27, group difference at 1 year). A marginal benefit to cognitive instrumental activities of daily living was also observed (treatment × time interaction, F?,??? = 2.94; P = .06). The donepezil group was more likely than the placebo group to experience recurrent major depression (35% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 24%-46%] vs 19% [95% CI, 9%-29%], respectively; log-rank ?² = 3.97; P = .05; hazard ratio = 2.09 [95% CI, 1.00-4.41]). Post hoc subgroup analyses showed that of 57 participants with mild cognitive impairment, 3 of 30 participants (10% [95% CI, 0%-21%]) receiving donepezil and 9 of 27 participants (33% [95% CI, 16%-51%]) receiving placebo had a conversion to dementia over 2 years (Fisher exact test, P = .05). The mild cognitive impairment subgroup had recurrence rates of major depression of 44% with donepezil vs 12% with placebo (likelihood ratio = 4.91; P = .03). The subgroup with normal cognition (n = 73) showed no benefit with donepezil and no increase in recurrence of major depression.Whether a cholinesterase inhibitor should be used as augmentation in the maintenance treatment of late-life depression depends on a careful weighing of risks and benefits in those with mild cognitive impairment. In cognitively intact patients, donepezil appears to have no clear benefit for preventing progression to mild cognitive impairment or dementia or for preventing recurrence of depression.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00177671.

Project description:Intravenous N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) antagonists have shown promising results in rapidly ameliorating depression symptoms, but placebo-controlled trials of oral NMDA antagonists as monotherapy have not observed efficacy. We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the NMDA antagonist memantine as an augmentation treatment for patients with DSM-IV major depressive disorder.Adult outpatients with major depressive disorder and partial response or nonresponse to their current antidepressant (as indicated by a 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score of ? 16 at baseline) were randomized (from July 2006-December 2011) to add memantine (flexible dose 5-20 mg/d, with all memantine group participants reaching the dose of 20 mg/d) (n = 15) or placebo (n = 16) to their existing treatment for 8 weeks. The primary outcome, change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Score (MADRS), was evaluated with repeated-measures mixed effects models using last-observation-carried-forward methods. Secondary outcomes included other depression and anxiety rating scales, suicidal and delusional ideation, and other adverse effects.84% of participants completed the trial, including 93% of participants receiving memantine. Participants receiving memantine did not show a statistically or clinically significant change in MADRS scores compared to placebo, either over the entire study (? = 0.133, favoring placebo, P = .74) or at study completion (week 8 mean [SD] MADRS score change = -7.13 [6.61] [memantine]; -7.25 [11.14] [placebo]; P = .97). A minimal to small effect size (comparing change to baseline variability) favoring placebo was observed (Cohen d = 0.19). Similarly, no substantial effect sizes favoring memantine nor statistically significant between-group differences were observed on secondary efficacy outcomes.This trial did not detect significant statistical or effect size differences between memantine and placebo augmentation among nonresponders or poor responders to conventional antidepressants. While the small number of participants is a limitation, this study suggests memantine lacks substantial efficacy as an augmentation treatment for major depressive disorder.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00344682.

Project description:BackgroundChronic pain and depression often co-occur, and pain may exacerbate depression in people with dementia.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of analgesic treatment for depression in nursing home patients with advanced dementia and clinically significant depressive symptoms.MethodsWe conducted a multicentre, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 47 nursing homes, including 162 nursing home patients aged ≥ 60 years with dementia (Mini-Mental State Examination ≤ 20) and depression (Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia ≥ 8). Patients were randomised to receive active analgesic treatment (paracetamol or buprenorphine transdermal system) or identical placebo for 13 weeks. The main outcome measure was the change in depression (Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia) from baseline to 13 weeks, assessed using linear mixed models with fixed effects for time, intervention and their interaction in the models. Secondary outcomes were to assess whether any change in depression was secondary to change in pain (Mobilisation-Observation-Behaviour-Intensity-Dementia-2 Pain Scale) and adverse events.ResultsThe mean depression change was - 0.66 (95% confidence interval - 2.27 to 0.94) in the active group (n = 80) and - 3.30 (- 4.68 to -1.92) in the placebo group (n = 82). The estimated treatment effect was 2.64 (0.55-4.72, p = 0.013), indicating that analgesic treatment had no effect on depressive symptoms from baseline to 13 weeks while placebo appeared to ameliorate depressive symptoms. There was no significant reduction in pain in the active treatment group (paracetamol and buprenorphine combined) vs. placebo; however, a subgroup analysis demonstrated a significant reduction in pain for paracetamol vs. placebo [by - 1.11 (- 2.16 to - 0.06, p = 0.037)] from week 6 to 13 without a change in depression. Buprenorphine did not have significant effects on depression [3.04 (- 0.11 to 6.19), p = 0.059] or pain [0.47 (- 0.77 to 1.71), p = 0.456] from 0 to 13 weeks. Thirty-five patients were withdrawn from the study because of adverse reactions, deterioration or death: 25 (31.3%) during active treatment [23 (52.3%) who received buprenorphine], and ten (12.2%) in the placebo group. The most frequently occurring adverse events were psychiatric (17 adverse reactions) and neurological (14 adverse reactions).ConclusionAnalgesic treatment did not reduce depression while placebo appeared to improve depressive symptoms significantly by comparison, possibly owing to the adverse effects of active buprenorphine. The risk of adverse events warrants caution when prescribing buprenorphine for people with advanced dementia.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02267057 (registered 7 July, 2014) and Norwegian Medicines Agency EudraCT 2013-002226-23.

Project description:ObjectiveQuetiapine is an atypical antipsychotic with demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of adolescent schizophrenia and pediatric bipolar mania. Large, placebo-controlled studies of interventions in pediatric bipolar depression are lacking. The current study investigated the efficacy and safety of quetiapine extended-release (XR) in patients 10-17 years of age, with acute bipolar depression.MethodsThis multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study investigated quetiapine XR (dose range, 150-300 mg/day) in pediatric outpatients with an American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed., Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) diagnosis of bipolar I or bipolar II disorder (current or most recent episode depressed) treated for up to 8 weeks (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00811473). The primary study outcome was mean change in Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R) total score. Secondary efficacy outcomes included CDRS-R-based response and remission rates.ResultsOf 193 patients randomized to treatment, 144 patients completed the study (75.3% of quetiapine XR group [n=70]; 74.0% of placebo group [n=74]). Least squares mean changes in CDRS-R total score at week 8 were: -29.6 (SE, 1.65) with quetiapine XR and -27.3 (SE, 1.60) with placebo, a between-treatment group difference of -2.29 (SE, 1.99; 95% CI, -6.22, 1.65; p=0.25; mixed-model for repeated measures analysis). Rates of response and remission did not differ significantly between treatment groups. The safety profile of quetiapine XR was broadly consistent with the profile reported previously in adult studies of quetiapine XR and pediatric studies of quetiapine immediate-release (IR). Potentially clinically significant elevations in clinical chemistry values included triglycerides (9.3%, quetiapine XR; 1.4%, placebo group) and thyroid stimulating hormone (4.7%, quetiapine XR; 0%, placebo group). An adverse event potentially related to diabetes mellitus occurred in 3.3% of the quetiapine XR versus no adverse events in the placebo group.ConclusionsQuetiapine XR did not demonstrate efficacy relative to placebo in this 8 week study of pediatric bipolar depression. Quetiapine XR was generally safe and well tolerated.

Project description:BackgroundAbout one-third of patients with depression fail to achieve remission despite treatment with multiple antidepressants and are considered to have treatment-resistant depression.MethodsThis Phase 3, double-blind, multicenter study enrolled adults with moderate-to-severe depression and nonresponse to ≥2 antidepressants in the current depression episode. Eligible patients (N = 346) were randomized (1:1:1) to twice-weekly nasal spray treatment (esketamine [56 or 84 mg] or placebo) plus a newly initiated, open-label, oral antidepressant taken daily for 4 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to day 28 in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score, performed by blinded, remote raters. Based on the predefined statistical testing sequence, esketamine 84 mg/antidepressant had to be significant for esketamine 56 mg/antidepressant to be formally tested.ResultsStatistical significance was not achieved with esketamine 84 mg/antidepressant compared with antidepressant/placebo (least squares [LS] means difference [95% CI]: -3.2 [-6.88, 0.45]; 2-sided P value = .088). Although esketamine 56 mg/antidepressant could not be formally tested, the LS means difference was -4.1 [-7.67, -0.49] (nominal 2-sided P value = .027). The most common (>20%) adverse events reported for esketamine/antidepressant were nausea, dissociation, dizziness, vertigo, and headache.ConclusionsStatistical significance was not achieved for the primary endpoint; nevertheless, the treatment effect (Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale) for both esketamine/antidepressant groups exceeded what has been considered clinically meaningful for approved antidepressants vs placebo. Safety was similar between esketamine/antidepressant groups and no new dose-related safety concerns were identified. This study provides supportive evidence for the safety and efficacy of esketamine nasal spray as a new, rapid-acting antidepressant for patients with treatment-resistant depression.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02417064.

Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of antidepressant augmentation with lamotrigine in patients with treatment-resistant depression: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study.

Publications

Efficacy and safety of antidepressant augmentation with lamotrigine in patients with treatment-resistant depression: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure