Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry
Outcome of a three-phase treatment algorithm for inpatients with melancholic depression
Introduction
According to the WHO World Mental Health (WMH) surveys, mental disorders are common in the general population, with mood disorders being the second most prevalent class (anxiety disorders being the most prevalent class) (Kessler et al., 2009). Mood disorders place a considerable burden on individuals and the society. In the WMH surveys, the lifetime prevalence of any mood disorder in the general population was found to be approximately 12% (Kessler et al., 2009). Moreover, the adequacy of treatment of mood disorders, with regard to dose and duration, remains a challenge in clinical practice. About 30–40% of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) are non-responders to initial antidepressant monotherapy and a substantial proportion of these patients develop chronic depressive symptoms (Adli et al., 2006). The use of treatment guidelines (also known as treatment algorithms) for the treatment of MDD optimizes and enhances treatment outcome by stepwise ordering of the different treatments and providing guidance on how best to implement the different treatments (Adli et al., 2006; Bauer et al., 2009; Linden et al., 1994; Birkenhäger et al., 2006; Trivedi et al., 2004; Yoshino et al., 2009).
The present study aimed to evaluate the overall feasibility and efficacy of a 3-phase treatment algorithm for inpatients with major depression: phase I optimal antidepressant monotherapy (imipramine or venlafaxine); phase II subsequent lithium addition in case of insufficient improvement of antidepressant monotherapy; phase III subsequent electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in case of insufficient improvement of antidepressant‑lithium treatment. All three phases were carried out while the patients were hospitalized.
Phase I, II and III combined form the entire treatment algorithm under evaluation.
This paper is based on an RCT comparing the two antidepressants in phase I and adding lithium in phase II (Vermeiden et al., 2013, Vermeiden et al., 2017).
Section snippets
Sample
Recruitment took place at the inpatient depression unit of the Department of Psychiatry of the Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam (EMCR), between March 2005 and March 2010. Patients suffering from uncomplicated MDD and patients suffering from treatment-resistant depression are treated at the depression unit. Included were all patients admitted to the depression unit, aged 18 years and older, diagnosed with single or recurrent MDD, both with and without psychotic features, and a baseline
Patient population
Between March 2005 and March 2010, 244 patients with MDD were admitted to the inpatient depression unit of the Department of Psychiatry of the EMCR; of these, 125 (51%) were excluded (Table 1). Of the remaining 119 eligible patients, 31 (26%) refused participation in an RCT or receiving double-blind medication.
Of the 244 patients, 88 (36%) were included in the 3-phase treatment algorithm; of these, 3 (1%) patients dropped out after randomization but before study medication was started, i.e.1
Discussion and comparison with previous reports
During the 5-year study period, 244 patients with MDD were admitted to the depression unit and 36% of them participated in the 3-phase algorithm. Twenty-six percent of the eligible patients refused to provide informed consent, despite receiving thorough information about the study procedures from the nursing staff. Most patients refused receiving double-blind medication. All patients who participated suffered from severe major depression, as evidenced by both the mean baseline 17-item HAM-D
Conclusion
The present results emphasize the importance of pursuing stepwise antidepressant treatment in patients not responding to the first antidepressant. In the completers, the favorable outcome of the algorithm is shown by a 93% response rate and a 64% remission rate. Adherence to the algorithm was reasonable, with an overall dropout rate of 28%. Both an index episode less than one year and not having received previous adequate treatment predicted a greater chance of achieving remission with the
Declaration of conflicting interest
Vermeiden M, Kamperman AM, Van Den Broek WW and Hoogendijk WJG have no conflict of interests and disclosures to declare. Birkenhäger TK received an unrestricted grant from Lundbeck BV and received speaker's fees from Lundbeck BV.
The data have not previously been presented. The Department of Psychiatry, Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, owns the preexisting data. All authors have access to all data. Vermeiden M (first author) can provide access to the full trial protocol and all data of the
Funding
Funding for this study was provided by the Department of Psychiatry of the Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Venlafaxine was provided by Wyeth Pharmaceuticals.
Ethical Statement
Our study protocol was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Erasmus MC Rotterdam. Our study was carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (1964), as amended in Edinburgh (2000). All patients provided written informed consent prior to entering the study.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the following for their support: Mrs. S. Verploegh for valuable assistance in data collection and Laraine Visser-Isles for English language editing.
References (29)
- et al.
Algorithms and collaborative-care systems for depression: are they effective and why? A systematic review
Biol. Psychiatry
(2006) Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors versus tricyclic antidepressants: a meta-analysis of efficacy and tolerability
J. Affect. Disord.
(2000)- et al.
Treatment of mood-congruent psychotic depression with imipramine
J. Affect. Disord.
(2001) - et al.
A systematic review and meta-analysis of lithium augmentation of tricyclic and second generation antidepressants in major depression
J. Affect. Disord.
(2014) Pharmacotherapy for major depression with melancholic features: relative efficacy of tricyclic versus selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants
J. Affect. Disord.
(1996)- et al.
Sequenced treatment alternatives to relieve depression (STAR*D): rationale and design
Control. Clin. Trials
(2004) - et al.
Later sleep schedule and depressive symptoms are associated with usage of multiple kinds of hypnotics
Sleep Med.
(2016) - et al.
A double-blind randomized study comparing plasma level-targeted dose imipramine and high-dose venlafaxine in depressed inpatients
J. Psychiatr. Res.
(2013) - et al.
How effective is algorithm-guided treatment for depressed inpatients? Results from the randomized controlled multicenter German algorithm project 3 trial
Int. J. Neuropsychoparmacol.
(2017) Practice guideline for the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder
Efficacy of an algorithm-guided treatment compared with treatment as usual, a randomized, controlled study of inpatients with depression
J. Clin. Psychopharmacol.
World Federation of Societies of biological psychiatry (WFSBP) guidelines for biological treatment of unipolar depressive disorders. Part 2: maintenance treatment of major depressive disorder-update 2015
World J. Biol. Psychiatry
Outcome of a 4-step treatment algorithm for depressed inpatients
J. Clin. Psychiatry
Efficacy of imipramine in psychotic versus nonpsychotic depression
J. Clin. Psychopharmacol.
Cited by (5)
On the origins of maoi misconceptions: Reaffirming their role in melancholic depression
2023, Psychopharmacology BulletinHydrothermal synthesis of ZnO nanoflowes for rapid detection of sertraline and imipramine using the modified screen-printed electrode
2022, Journal of Materials Science: Materials in ElectronicsPsychopharmacology Algorithms for Major Depressive Disorder: Current Status
2021, Advances in Experimental Medicine and BiologyEpidemiology, etiology, screening, psychotherapy of malignant tumor patients with secondary depressive disorder
2018, Current Pharmaceutical Design