Treatment of Atypical Depression With Cognitive Therapy or Phenelzine: A Double-blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

Department of Psychiatry, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas.
Archives of General Psychiatry (Impact Factor: 14.48). 11/2000; 57(11):1084.
Source: PubMed


Patients with atypical depression are more likely to respond to monoamine oxidase inhibitors than to tricyclic antidepressants. They are frequently offered psychotherapy in the absence of controlled tests. There are no prospective, randomized, controlled trials, to our knowledge, of psychotherapy for atypical depression or of cognitive therapy compared with a monoamine oxidase inhibitor. Since there is only 1 placebo-controlled trial of cognitive therapy, this trial fills a gap in the literature on psychotherapy for depression.

Outpatients with DSM-III-R major depressive disorder and atypical features (N = 108) were treated in a 10-week, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial comparing acute-phase cognitive therapy or clinical management plus either phenelzine sulfate or placebo. Atypical features were defined as reactive mood plus at least 2 additional symptoms: hypersomnia, hyperphagia, leaden paralysis, or lifetime sensitivity to rejection.

With the use of an intention-to-treat strategy, the response rates (21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score, < or =9) were significantly greater after cognitive therapy (58%) and phenelzine (58%) than after pill placebo (28%). Phenelzine and cognitive therapy also reduced symptoms significantly more than placebo according to contrasts after a repeated-measures analysis of covariance and random regression with the use of the blind evaluator's final Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score. The scores between cognitive therapy and phenelzine did not differ significantly. Supplemental analyses of other symptom severity measures confirm the finding.

Cognitive therapy may offer an effective alternative to standard acute-phase treatment with a monoamine oxidase inhibitor for outpatients with major depressive disorder and atypical features.

Download full-text


Available from: Robin B Jarrett,
  • Source
    • "Change in our trial occurred later in time than in other (often US-based) trials. A direct comparison at 2 months shows an average drop of only 6 BDI-II points in the current study compared to 10–15 points in other trials (Jarrett et al. 1999; Dimidjian et al. 2006). An explanation might be the difference in session frequency. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Although both cognitive therapy (CT) and interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) have been shown to be effective treatments for major depressive disorder (MDD), it is not clear yet whether one therapy outperforms the other with regard to severity and course of the disorder. This study examined the clinical effectiveness of CT v. IPT in a large sample of depressed patients seeking treatment in a Dutch outpatient mental health clinic. We tested whether one of the treatments was superior to the other at post-treatment and at 5 months follow-up. Furthermore, we tested whether active treatment was superior to no treatment. We also assessed whether initial depression severity moderated the effect of time and condition and tested for therapist differences. Methods: Depressed adults (n = 182) were randomized to either CT (n = 76), IPT (n = 75) or a 2-month waiting list control (WLC) condition (n = 31). Main outcome was depression severity, measured with the Beck Depression Inventory - II (BDI-II), assessed at baseline, 2, 3, and 7 months (treatment phase) and monthly up to 5 months follow-up (8-12 months). Results: No differential effects between CT and IPT were found. Both treatments exceeded response in the WLC condition, and led to considerable improvement in depression severity that was sustained up to 1 year. Baseline depression severity did not moderate the effect of time and condition. Conclusion: Within our power and time ranges, CT and IPT appeared not to differ in the treatment of depression in the acute phase and beyond.
    Psychological Medicine 02/2015; 45(10):1-16. DOI:10.1017/S0033291715000033 · 5.94 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "As a consequence, we decided to utilize the strategy of LOCF, knowing that we might thereby have chosen a more conservative approach, which potentially underestimates outcome effect sizes. This is a limitation of the present study, given that in the majority of the clinical trials (i.e., Dimidjian et al., 2006; Elkin et al., 1989; Jarrett et al., 1999) BDIs were completed more frequently, that is, the RCTs might have a more accurate assessment of depression improvement of their patients. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Little is known about how exclusion criteria applied in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) affect the transfer of psychotherapy outcome research to naturalistic settings. This study evaluated the effects of naturalistic depression therapies and benchmarked them with published RCTs. Commonly used exclusion criteria were applied to n=338 depressive patients receiving cognitive-behavioral therapy. Outcomes of the resulting subsample eligible for RCTs were compared to those reported in RCTs. Treatment outcomes of the total sample (d=1.16) and the subsample eligible for RCTs (d=1.15) were highly similar. Therapy outcome was worse than in high-quality RCTs (d=1.39). No systematic bias was demonstrated due to patient selection criteria that are typically applied in RCTs. The comparability of psychotherapies conducted in RCTs and in real-world settings might be underestimated. Conclusions concerning the improvement of therapies in naturalistic settings are discussed.
    Psychotherapy Research 07/2011; 21(6):644-57. DOI:10.1080/10503307.2011.602750 · 1.75 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Although CBT did not separate from placebo in the more severely depressed samples in two studies, another type of psychotherapy performed at least as well as medications and was superior to pill placebo in each of those trials (interpersonal psychotherapy in Elkin et al., 1995; and behavioral activation in Dimidjian et al., 2006). Furthermore, questions have been raised about the adequacy with which the cognitive interventions were implemented in those two studies (Hollon, Thase, & Markowitz, 2002; Jacobson & Hollon, 1996a, 1996b), and cognitive therapy has been found to be comparable with medications and superior to pill placebo in the other two placebo-controlled trials in the literature (patients with atypical depression in Jarrett et al., 1999, and patients with more severe depressions in DeRubeis et al., 2005). More such comparisons are clearly needed in more severe depressions , but there is little reason to believe that psychological treatment does not work for such patients or that it is necessarily inferior to medications when adequately implemented. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: It is widely believed that psychological treatment has little effect on more severely depressed patients. This study assessed whether pretreatment severity moderates psychological treatment outcome relative to controls by means of meta-analyses. We included 132 studies (10,134 participants) from a database of studies ( in which the effects of psychological treatment on adult outpatients with a depressive disorder or an elevated level of depressive symptoms were compared with a control condition in a randomized controlled trial. Two raters independently extracted outcome data and rated study characteristics. We conducted metaregression analyses assessing whether mean pretreatment depression scores predicted psychological treatment versus control condition posttreatment effect size and subgroup analyses summarizing the results of studies reporting within-study analyses of depression severity and psychological treatment outcome. Psychological treatment was found to be consistently superior to control conditions (d = 0.40-0.88). We found no indication that pretreatment mean depression scores predicted psychological treatment versus control condition posttreatment effect size, even after adjusting for relevant study characteristics. However, among the smaller subset of studies that reported within-study severity analyses, posttreatment effect sizes were higher for high-severity patients (d = 0.63) than for low-severity patients (d = 0.22) when psychological treatment was efficacious relative to a more stringent control. Contrary to conventional wisdom, our findings suggest that when compared with control conditions, psychological treatment might be more efficacious for high-severity than for low-severity patients. Because the number of studies reporting within-study severity analyses is small, we recommend that future studies routinely report tests for Severity × Treatment interactions.
    Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 10/2010; 78(5):668-80. DOI:10.1037/a0020570 · 4.85 Impact Factor
Show more