The early improvement of depressive symptoms as a potential predictor of response to antidepressants in depressive patients who failed to respond to previous antidepressant treatments. Analysis of naturalistic data

The Department of Psychiatry and Medical Psychology, 3rd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Ruska 87, Prague 10, 100 00, Czech Republic. Electronic address: .
European Psychiatry (Impact Factor: 3.44). 11/2011; 27(7):522-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2011.05.002
Source: PubMed


Current studies suggest that improvement of depressive symptoms after 2 weeks of treatment could predict the subsequent response. The aim of our study was to compare the predictive effect of early improvement (EI) after 1 and 2 weeks of treatment in patients who had failed to respond to previous antidepressant treatments (≥1 unsuccessful antidepressant trial).
Seventy-one subjects were treated (≥4 weeks) with various antidepressants chosen according to the judgment of attending psychiatrists. We used three definitions of EI (MADRS reduction ≥20, 25, 30%) at both time points. Areas under curve (AUC) were calculated to compare predictive effect of EI.
We found lower MADRS scores in weeks 1 and 2 in responders (≥50% reduction of MADRS, n=35) compared to nonresponders. AUCs of MADRS reduction for response prediction at week 1 and 2 were not significantly different (0.73 vs 0.8; p=0.24).
The results indicate that improvement of depressive symptoms in the treatment of resistant patients may occur after the first week of treatment. The predictive potential might be comparable to that found after the second week of antidepressant intervention and be clinically meaningful.

Download full-text


Available from: Cyril Höschl, Oct 15, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Fragestellung: Ist „early improvement“ auch bei Patienten, die nur unzureichend auf den ersten antidepressiven Behandlungsversuch angesprochen hatten, ein geeigneter Prädiktor für den finalen Therapieerfolg nach Medikationsumstellung?Hintergrund: Viele Befunde deuten darauf hin, dass die Wirkung einer antidepressiven Therapie nicht mit einer Latenz von mehreren Wochen, sondern regelhaft schon innerhalb der ersten zwei Wochen eintritt („early improvement“, EI). Das Auftreten von EI bewies in retrospektiven Analysen einen hohen Vorhersagewert für den finalen Therapieerfolg. Da die Ergebnisse geeigneter prospektiver Studien noch ausstehen, empfehlen aktuelle Leitlinien zur Depressionsbehandlung weiterhin eine Behandlungsdauer von drei bis vier Wochen, bevor ein insuffizientes Therapieansprechen angenommen und die Therapie optimiert werden soll. Über den zeitlichen Verlauf von Therapieresponse bei Patienten, die bereits einen Therapiefehlschlag erlebt haben, ist noch wenig bekannt und Leit ...
    02/2013; 15(2):8-9. DOI:10.1007/s15005-013-0049-y
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Context: A delay of 4-8weeks before modifying the prescribed antidepressant treatment is usually proposed when incomplete treatment response is observed. A number of studies nevertheless proposed that the lack of early improvement (usually 20% decrease of severity at week 2) is predictive of the absence of subsequent treatment response, potentially saving weeks of inadequate treatment, but with no information for non-interventional studies devoted to outpatients. Method: Two thousand nine hundred and thirty-eight outpatients with major depressive disorder were included in a multicentre, non-interventional study, assessing at inclusion, week 2 and week 6, mood (QIDS-C, CGI, PGI and VAS) sleep (LSEQ) and functionality (SDS). All metrics at week 2 were tested for their capacity to predict response (and then remission) at week 6, all patients being treated by agomelatine. A meta-analysis of all studies (n=12) assessing the predictive role of improvement at week 2 was also performed, assessing specific effect size of published studies and the weight of the different parameters they used. Results: The QIDS-C and the CGI-I were the only instruments with an area under the curve over 0.7, with different cut-offs for treatment response and remission. A decrease of more than five points at the QIDS-C had the highest positive predictive value for treatment response, and a CGI-I over three had the highest negative predictive value, which would favour relying on the clinicians for warning (too high CGI-I), and on instruments for confidence (favourable decrease of the QIDS-C). The meta-analysis of all studies also detected a large effect size of early improvement, stressing how rating week 2 severity could be beneficial in clinical practice. Conclusions: Previous reports stressing the interest of an assessment at week 2 were reinforced by the present results, which also defined more accurately what could be the most appropriate cut-offs, and how combining these early results could be more effective.
    European Psychiatry 02/2013; 28(6). DOI:10.1016/j.eurpsy.2012.11.004 · 3.44 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a chronic, recurrent mental disease that causes serious disability. Because currently available antidepressants have limited efficacy with respect to response and remission in patients with MDD, clinicians must choose the best available treatment interventions for patients who do not respond to initial antidepressant treatment. The existing literature demonstrates that augmentation with atypical antipsychotics (AAs) shows higher response and remission rates compared with antidepressant monotherapy, but is associated with more withdrawals due to adverse events. In this paper, specific clinical issues in the use of AA augmentation for patients with MDD are briefly discussed. Given the limited information and clinical knowledge on the proper and effective use of AAs for MDD, future research should focus on practical clinical issues that can be commonly seen in routine practice but have not been addressed yet. This is because the use of AAs is likely to expand as there is good evidence for their effectiveness and tolerability as augmentation therapy for patients with MDD.
    CNS Drugs 05/2013; 27(S1). DOI:10.1007/s40263-012-0032-z · 5.11 Impact Factor
Show more