MATERIALS & METHODS: This is a case-control study consisting of 47 MDD patients and 47 healthy controls. MDD patients were treated with antidepressant drugs according to their physician's choice. The severity of MDD was assessed using Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) at the time of recruitment. Healthy controls completed the Depression Anxiety Scoring System (DASS21) questionnaire to ensure they were in good mental health without history of MDD. The percentage and absolute count of CD4+ CD25+ Tregs and CD4+ CD25+ FOXP3+ Tregs were identified by multiparameter flow cytometry.
RESULTS: The percentage and absolute count of CD4+ CD25+ Treg cells were significantly higher in MDD patients than in healthy controls (P<0.001, in both cases). Likewise, the percentage and absolute count of CD4+ CD25+ FOXP3+ Treg cells were also significantly higher in MDD patients compared to healthy controls (P=0.003 and P=0.002, respectively). However, there was no significant correlation between the percentage and absolute count of CD4+ CD25+ Treg and CD4+ CD25+ FOXP3+ Treg cells with BDI or MADRS score.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that antidepressant treatments contributed to an upregulation of Tregs in MDD patients.
METHODS: Elderly outpatients aged at least 65 years with a primary diagnosis of moderate to severe episode of recurrent MDD were recruited by psychiatrists in 44 clinical centers in 10 countries from October 2013 to January 2016. Patients were randomly assigned to receive tianeptine (n = 105), placebo (n = 107), or escitalopram (n = 99) for 8 weeks. The primary outcome measure was the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS₁₇) total score.
RESULTS: Tianeptine improved depressive symptoms, as evaluated by the HDRS₁₇ total score in terms of absolute change from baseline (week 0) to week 8 (placebo-tianeptine difference [SE] of 3.84 [0.85] points, P < .001, using a last-observation-carried-forward approach) and response to treatment (tianeptine: 46.7%; placebo: 34.0%, estimate [SE] = 12.70% [6.70], P = .06). A sensitivity analysis using a mixed model for repeated measures confirmed the main results on HDRS total score. The placebo-tianeptine difference (SE) was 0.66 (0.15) for Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.96; P < .001) and 0.57 (0.14) for Clinical Global Impressions- Improvement (95% CI, 0.30 to 0.83; P < .001). Positive results were also obtained with the active control escitalopram (HDRS₁₇ total score placebo-escitalopram difference of 4.09 ± 0.86 points, P < .001), therefore validating the sensitivity of the studied population. Tianeptine was well tolerated, with only minimal differences in tolerability from placebo.
CONCLUSIONS: The present study provides robust evidence that an 8-week treatment period with tianeptine 25-50 mg is efficacious and well tolerated in depressed patients aged 65 years or older.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT identifier: 2012-005612-26.
METHODS: This phase 3, open-label, multicenter, long-term (up to 1 year) study was conducted between October 2015 and October 2017. Patients (≥ 18 years) with TRD (DSM-5 diagnosis of major depressive disorder and nonresponse to ≥ 2 OAD treatments) were enrolled directly or transferred from a short-term study (patients aged ≥ 65 years). Esketamine nasal spray (28-mg, 56-mg, or 84-mg) plus new OAD was administered twice a week in a 4-week induction (IND) phase and weekly or every-other-week for patients who were responders and entered a 48-week optimization/maintenance (OP/MAINT) phase.
RESULTS: Of 802 enrolled patients, 86.2% were direct-entry and 13.8% were transferred-entry; 580 (74.5%) of 779 patients who entered the IND phase completed the phase, and 150 (24.9%) of 603 who entered the OP/MAINT phase completed the phase. Common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were dizziness (32.9%), dissociation (27.6%), nausea (25.1%), and headache (24.9%). Seventy-six patients (9.5%) discontinued esketamine due to TEAEs. Fifty-five patients (6.9%) experienced serious TEAEs. Most TEAEs occurred on dosing days, were mild or moderate in severity, and resolved on the same day. Two deaths were reported; neither was considered related to esketamine. Cognitive performance generally either improved or remained stable postbaseline. There was no case of interstitial cystitis or respiratory depression. Treatment-emergent dissociative symptoms were transient and generally resolved within 1.5 hours postdose. Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score decreased during the IND phase, and this reduction persisted during the OP/MAINT phase (mean [SD] change from baseline of respective phase to endpoint: IND, -16.4 [8.76]; OP/MAINT, 0.3 [8.12]).
CONCLUSIONS: Long-term esketamine nasal spray plus new OAD therapy had a manageable safety profile, and improvements in depression appeared to be sustained in patients with TRD.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02497287.
METHOD: A meta-analysis was performed on data from three genome-wide pharmacogenetic studies (the Genome-Based Therapeutic Drugs for Depression [GENDEP] project, the Munich Antidepressant Response Signature [MARS] project, and the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression [STAR*D] study), which included 2,256 individuals of Northern European descent with major depressive disorder, and antidepressant treatment outcomes were prospectively collected. After imputation, 1.2 million single-nucleotide polymorphisms were tested, capturing common variation for association with symptomatic improvement and remission after up to 12 weeks of antidepressant treatment.
RESULTS: No individual association met a genome-wide threshold for statistical significance in the primary analyses. A polygenic score derived from a meta-analysis of GENDEP and MARS participants accounted for up to approximately 1.2% of the variance in outcomes in STAR*D, suggesting a weakly concordant signal distributed over many polymorphisms. An analysis restricted to 1,354 individuals treated with citalopram (STAR*D) or escitalopram (GENDEP) identified an intergenic region on chromosome 5 associated with early improvement after 2 weeks of treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite increased statistical power accorded by meta-analysis, the authors identified no reliable predictors of antidepressant treatment outcome, although they did identify modest, direct evidence that common genetic variation contributes to individual differences in antidepressant response.
OBJECTIVES: The present study examines the cellular mechanisms by which scopolamine produces antidepressant-like effects through its action in the ventrolateral midbrain periaqueductal gray (vlPAG).
METHODS: We used a well-established mouse model of depression induced by chronic restraint stress (CRS) exposure for 14 days. Behaviors were tested using the forced swim test (FST), tail suspension test (TST), female urine sniffing test (FUST), novelty-suppressed feeding test (NSFT), and locomotor activity (LMA). Synaptic transmission in the vlPAG was measured by whole-cell patch-clamp recordings. IntravlPAG microinjection was used to pharmacologically verify the signaling cascades of scopolamine in the vlPAG.
RESULTS: The results demonstrated that intraperitoneal injection of scopolamine produced antidepressant-like effects in a dose-dependent manner without affecting locomotor activity. CRS elicited depression-like behaviors, whereas intraperitoneal injection of scopolamine alleviated CRS-induced depression-like behaviors. CRS diminished glutamatergic transmission in the vlPAG, while scopolamine reversed the above effects. Moreover, intravlPAG microinjection of the L-type voltage-dependent calcium channel (VDCC) blocker verapamil, tropomyosin-related kinase B (TrkB) receptor antagonist ANA-12, mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1) inhibitor rapamycin, and α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid receptor (AMPA) antagonist CNQX prevented scopolamine-induced antidepressant-like effects.
CONCLUSIONS: Scopolamine ameliorated CRS-elicited depression-like behavior required activation of VDCC, resulting in activity-dependent release of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), engaging the TrkB receptor and downstream mTORC1 signaling in the vlPAG.