Dataset Information

The Safety and Efficacy of Microbial Ecosystem Therapeutic-2 in People With Major Depression: Protocol for a Phase 2, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The gut-brain axis is a bidirectional signaling pathway between the gastrointestinal tract and the brain; it is being studied because of its potential influence in mediating mood, anxiety, and other neuropsychiatric symptoms. Previous research examining the effects of gut microbiota on neuropsychiatric disorders suggests that gut repopulation treatments such as probiotics, microbe therapy, and fecal microbiota transplantation show promising results in treating symptoms of anxiety and depression. This study explores the use of an alternative gut repopulation treatment to fecal microbiota transplantation, known as Microbial Ecosystem Therapeutic (MET)-2, as an intervention against symptoms of depression. MET-2 is a daily, orally administered capsule containing 40 bacterial strains purified from a single healthy donor.

Objective

The primary aim of this study is to assess changes in mood in people with major depression that occur pre-, post-, and during the administration of MET-2. The secondary aims are to assess changes in anxiety symptoms, blood biomarker concentrations, and the level of repopulation of healthy gut bacteria as a response to treatment.

Methods

In this study, we will recruit 60 adults aged between 18 and 45 years old with major depression and randomly assign them to treatment or placebo groups. Patients in the treatment group will receive MET-2 once a day for 6 weeks, whereas patients in the placebo group will receive a matching placebo for 6 weeks. Participants will complete biweekly visits during the treatment period and a follow-up visit at 2 weeks post treatment. As a primary outcome measure, participants' mood will be assessed using the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale. Secondary outcome measures include changes in mood, anxiety, early stress, gastrointestinal symptoms, and tolerability of MET-2 treatment using a series of clinical scales and changes in blood markers, particularly immunoglobulins (Igs; IgA, IgG, and IgM) and inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein, tumor necrosis factor-α, transforming growth factor-β, interleukin-6, and interleukin-10). Changes in the relative abundance, diversity, and level of engraftment in fecal samples will be assessed using 16S rRNA sequencing. All data will be integrated to identify biomarkers that could indicate disease state or predict improvement in depressive symptoms in response to MET-2 treatment.

Results

Given the association between the gut microbiome and depression, we hypothesized that participants receiving MET-2 would experience greater improvement in depressive symptoms than those receiving placebo owing to the recolonization of the gut microbiome with healthy bacteria modulating the gut-brain axis connection.

Conclusions

This study is the first of its kind to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a microbial therapy such as MET-2 in comparison with placebo for major depressive disorder. We hope that this study will also reveal the potential capabilities of microbial therapies to treat other psychiatric illnesses and mood disorders.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04602715; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04602715.

International registered report identifier (irrid)

DERR1-10.2196/31439.

SUBMITTER: Chinna Meyyappan A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8495575 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The bidirectional signaling between the gut microbiota and the brain, known as the gut-brain axis, is being heavily explored in current neuropsychiatric research. Analyses of the human gut microbiota have shown considerable individual variability in bacterial content, which is hypothesized to influence brain function, and potentially mood and anxiety symptoms, through gut-brain axis communication. Preclinical and clinical research examining these effects suggests that fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) may aid in improving the severity of depression and anxiety symptoms by recolonizing the gastrointestinal (GI) tract with healthy bacteria. The microbial ecosystem therapeutic (ie, microbial ecosystem therapeutic-2 [MET-2]) used in this study is an alternative treatment to FMT, which comprises 40 different strains of gut bacteria from a healthy donor. OBJECTIVE:The primary objective of this study is to assess subjective changes in mood and anxiety symptoms before, during, and after administration of MET-2. The secondary objectives of this study are to assess the changes in metabolic functioning and the level of repopulation of healthy gut bacteria, the safety and tolerability of MET-2, and the effects of early stress on biomarkers of depression/anxiety and the response to treatment. METHODS:Adults experiencing depressive or anxiety symptoms will be recruited from the Kingston area. These participants will orally consume an encapsulated MET-2 once daily-containing 40 strains of purified and laboratory-grown bacteria from a single healthy donor-for 8 weeks, followed by a 2-week treatment-free follow-up period. Participants will undergo a series of clinical assessments measuring mood, anxiety, and GI symptoms using validated clinical scales and questionnaires. Molecular data will be collected from blood and fecal samples to assess metabolic changes, neurotransmitter levels, inflammatory markers, and the level of engraftment of the fecal samples that may predict outcomes in depression or anxiety. RESULTS:Given the association between the gut bacteria and the risk factors of depression, we expect to observe an improvement in the severity of depressive and anxiety symptoms following treatment, and we expect that this improvement is mediated by the recolonization of the GI tract with healthy bacteria. The recruitment for this study has been completed, and the data obtained are currently being analyzed. CONCLUSIONS:This is the first time MET-2 is being tested in psychiatric indications, specifically depression and anxiety. As such, this may be the first study to show the potential effects of microbial therapy in alleviating psychiatric symptoms as well as its safety and tolerability. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID):DERR1-10.2196/17223.

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:Objective: It has been suggested that patients' perception of treatment assignment might serve to bias results of double blind randomized controlled trials (RCT). Most previous evidence on the effects of patients' perceptions and the mechanisms influencing these perceptions relies on cross-sectional associations. This re-analysis of a double blind, placebo controlled RCT of pharmacological treatment of major depression set out to gather longitudinal evidence on the mechanism and effects of patients' perceived treatment assignment in the pharmacological treatment of major depression. Methods: One-hundred eighty-nine outpatients with DSM-IV diagnosed major depression were randomized to SAMe 1,600-3,200 mg/d, escitalopram 10-20 mg/days, or placebo for 12 weeks. Data on depressive symptoms (17-item Hamilton Depression Scale; HDRS-17), adverse events and patients' perceived treatment assignment was collected at baseline, week 6, and week 12. The re-analysis focused on N = 166 (out of the originally included 189 participants) with available data on perceived treatment assignment. Results: As in the parent trial, depressive symptoms (HDRS-17) significantly decreased over the course of 12 weeks and there was no difference between placebo, SAMe or escitalopram. A significant number of patients changed their perceptions about treatment assignment throughout the trial, especially between baseline and week 6. Improvement in depressive symptoms, but not adverse events significantly predicted perceived treatment assignment at week 6. In turn, perceived treatment assignment at week 6, but not actual treatment, predicted further improvement in depressive symptoms at week 12. Conclusions: The current results provide longitudinal evidence that patients' perception of treatment assignment systematically change despite a double blind procedure and in turn might trigger expectancy effects with the potential to bias the validity of an RCT. Parent study grant number: R01 AT001638 Parent study ClinicalTrials. gov Identifier: NCT00101452.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Whether Borna disease virus (BDV-1) is a human pathogen remained controversial until recent encephalitis cases showed BDV-1 infection could even be deadly. This called to mind previous evidence for an infectious contribution of BDV-1 to mental disorders. Pilot open trials suggested that BDV-1 infected depressed patients benefitted from antiviral therapy with a licensed drug (amantadine) which also tested sensitive in vitro. Here, we designed a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial (RCT) which cross-linked depression and BDV-1 infection, addressing both the antidepressant and antiviral efficacy of amantadine. METHODS:The interventional phase II RCT (two 7-weeks-treatment periods and a 12-months follow-up) at the Hannover Medical School (MHH), Germany, assigned currently depressed BDV-1 infected patients with either major depression (MD; N = 23) or bipolar disorder (BD; N = 13) to amantadine sulphate (PK-Merz®; twice 100 mg orally daily) or placebo treatment, and contrariwise, respectively. Clinical changes were assessed every 2-3 weeks by the 21-item Hamilton rating scale for depression (HAMD) (total, single, and combined scores). BDV-1 activity was determined accordingly in blood plasma by enzyme immune assays for antigens (PAG), antibodies (AB) and circulating immune complexes (CIC). RESULTS:Primary outcomes (≥25% HAMD reduction, week 7) were 81.3% amantadine vs. 35.3% placebo responder (p = 0.003), a large clinical effect size (ES; Cohen's d) of 1.046, and excellent drug tolerance. Amantadine was safe reducing suicidal behaviour in the first 2 weeks. Pre-treatment maximum infection levels were predictive of clinical improvement (AB, p = 0.001; PAG, p = 0.026; HAMD week 7). Respective PAG and CIC levels correlated with AB reduction (p = 0,001 and p = 0.034, respectively). Follow-up benefits (12 months) correlated with dropped cumulative infection measures over time (p < 0.001). In vitro, amantadine concentrations as low as 2.4-10 ng/mL (50% infection-inhibitory dose) prevented infection with human BDV Hu-H1, while closely related memantine failed up to 100,000-fold higher concentration (200 μg/mL). CONCLUSIONS:Our findings indicate profound antidepressant efficacy of safe oral amantadine treatment, paralleling antiviral effects at various infection levels. This not only supports the paradigm of a link of BDV-1 infection and depression. It provides a novel possibly practice-changing low cost mental health care perspective for depressed BDV-1-infected patients addressing global needs. TRIAL REGISTRATION:The trial was retrospectively registered in the German Clinical Trials Registry on 04th of March 2015. The trial ID is DRKS00007649; https://www.drks.de/drks_web/setLocale_EN.do.

Project description:BackgroundRecent studies have investigated the potential of treatments that modify the gut microbiome, such as fecal microbiota transplantation and probiotics, in individuals with psychiatric illnesses.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of a novel gut microbiome therapeutic, Microbial Ecosystem Therapuetic-2 (MET-2), in people with depression and anxiety.MethodsIn this phase 1, open-label trial, 12 adults diagnosed with major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, or both were recruited. Over 8 weeks, participants consumed three capsules per day, orally, of an encapsulated microbial therapeutic (MET-2), which contained 40 strains of bacteria that were purified and lab-grown from the stool of a single healthy donor. Participants were assessed biweekly using clinical scales and questionnaires in order to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of the therapeutic.ResultsThe therapeutic was found to be generally safe and tolerable, with limited adverse events and side effects and no serious adverse events. Of the 12 individuals included in this study, 9 (75%) responded to treatment (50% improvement in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] scores, 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale [GAD-7] scores, or both, from baseline to the week-8 visit). Over the course of 10 weeks, MET-2 significantly decreased mean MADRS and GAD-7 scores (MADRS: F2.731, 30.05=8.784, P<.001; GAD-7: F2.778, 30.55= 9.638, P<.001). Multiple comparisons with Bonferroni adjustments showed a significant reduction in MADRS scores from baseline (mean 19.00, SD 4.843) to week 6 (mean 11.25, SD 8.001; P=.009), week 8 (mean 8.667, SD 8.732; P=.002), and week 10 (mean 8.250, SD 9.304; P=.006). Multiple comparisons showed a significant reduction in GAD-7 scores from baseline (mean 13.58, SD 4.010) to week 4 (mean 9.167, SD 5.096; P=.03), week 6 (mean 7.667, SD 4.539; P=.004), week 8 (mean 7.333, SD 6.583; P=.03), and week 10 (mean 7.500, SD 6.448; P=.03).ConclusionsThe findings from this study are the first to provide evidence for the role of microbial ecosystem therapy in treating depression and anxiety. However, a double-blind, randomized controlled trial with a larger sample size is needed for more conclusive results.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04052451; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04052451.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.2196/17223.