Are you aware of any original research paper published in 2019 that led you to change your clinical practice in any way? 2020 is the third year that Simple and Practical Medical Education will be giving the annual Minerva Award for the best (published) paper that has some immediate practical utility for helping mental health patients. That is, after reading the paper, clinicians should change their clinical practice in some way. This is consistent with the mission of Simple and Practical Medical Education. You would think that the great majority of published papers would have clinical utility, but, sadly, this is not the case. For details of the award, the judges, and the rules, please see the following page: Annual Minerva award for the best paper
Nominated papers (published in 2019)
The following papers have been nominated preliminarily. This list will be modified as papers are added or eliminated. In May 2020, the final list (winner and commended papers) will be published on this page and will be disseminated by email and on social media.
Note: These papers were nominated by someone but have NOT been evaluated by the Simple and Practical Medical Education team yet. We are NOT yet endorsing them as being clinically useful. This is only a preliminary list.
The nominated papers are (alphabetically):
Hajek P, Phillips-Waller A, Przulj D, Pesola F, Myers Smith K, Bisal N, Li J, Parrott S, Sasieni P, Dawkins L, Ross L, Goniewicz M, Wu Q, McRobbie HJ. A Randomized Trial of E-Cigarettes versus Nicotine-Replacement Therapy. N Engl J Med. 2019 Feb 14;380(7):629-637. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1808779. Epub 2019 Jan 30. PubMed PMID: 30699054.
BACKGROUND: E-cigarettes are commonly used in attempts to stop smoking, but evidence is limited regarding their effectiveness as compared with that of nicotine products approved as smoking-cessation treatments.
METHODS: We randomly assigned adults attending U.K. National Health Service stop-smoking services to either nicotine-replacement products of their choice, including product combinations, provided for up to 3 months, or an e-cigarette starter pack (a second-generation refillable e-cigarette with one bottle of nicotine e-liquid [18 mg per milliliter]), with a recommendation to purchase further e-liquids of the flavor and strength of their choice. Treatment included weekly behavioral support for at least 4 weeks. The primary outcome was sustained abstinence for 1 year, which was validated biochemically at the final visit. Participants who were lost to follow-up or did not provide biochemical validation were considered to not be abstinent. Secondary outcomes included participant-reported treatment usage and respiratory symptoms.
RESULTS: A total of 886 participants underwent randomization. The 1-year abstinence rate was 18.0% in the e-cigarette group, as compared with 9.9% in the nicotine-replacement group (relative risk, 1.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30 to 2.58; P<0.001). Among participants with 1-year abstinence, those in the e-cigarette group were more likely than those in the nicotine-replacement group to use their assigned product at 52 weeks (80% [63 of 79 participants] vs. 9% [4 of 44 participants]). Overall, throat or mouth irritation was reported more frequently in the e-cigarette group (65.3%, vs. 51.2% in the nicotine-replacement group) and nausea more frequently in the nicotine-replacement group (37.9%, vs. 31.3% in the e-cigarette group). The e-cigarette group reported greater declines in the incidence of cough and phlegm production from baseline to 52 weeks than did the nicotine-replacement group (relative risk for cough, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6 to 0.9; relative risk for phlegm, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.6 to 0.9). There were no significant between-group differences in the incidence of wheezing or shortness of breath.
CONCLUSIONS: E-cigarettes were more effective for smoking cessation than nicotine-replacement therapy, when both products were accompanied by behavioral support. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research and Cancer Research UK; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN60477608 .).
Huhn M, Nikolakopoulou A, Schneider-Thoma J, Krause M, Samara M, Peter N, Arndt T, Bäckers L, Rothe P, Cipriani A, Davis J, Salanti G, Leucht S. Comparative efficacy and tolerability of 32 oral antipsychotics for the acute treatment of adults with multi-episode schizophrenia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet. 2019 Sep 14;394(10202):939-951. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31135-3. Epub 2019 Jul 11. Erratum in: Lancet. 2019 Sep 14;394(10202):918. PubMed PMID: 31303314; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6891890.
BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders in adults worldwide. Antipsychotic drugs are its treatment of choice, but there is controversy about which agent should be used. We aimed to compare and rank antipsychotics by quantifying information from randomised controlled trials.
METHODS: We did a network meta-analysis of placebo-controlled and head-to-head randomised controlled trials and compared 32 antipsychotics. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, BIOSIS, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov from database inception to Jan 8, 2019. Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We included randomised controlled trials in adults with acute symptoms of schizophrenia or related disorders. We excluded studies in patients with treatment resistance, first episode, predominant negative or depressive symptoms, concomitant medical illnesses, and relapse-prevention studies. Our primary outcome was change in overall symptoms measured with standardised rating scales. We also extracted data for eight efficacy and eight safety outcomes. Differences in the findings of the studies were explored in metaregressions and sensitivity analyses. Effect size measures were standardised mean differences, mean differences, or risk ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). Confidence in the evidence was assessed using CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis). The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42014014919.
FINDINGS: We identified 54 417 citations and included 402 studies with data for 53 463 participants. Effect size estimates suggested all antipsychotics reduced overall symptoms more than placebo (although not statistically significant for six drugs), with standardised mean differences ranging from -0·89 (95% CrI -1·08 to -0·71) for clozapine to -0·03 (-0·59 to 0·52) for levomepromazine (40 815 participants). Standardised mean differences compared with placebo for reduction of positive symptoms (31 179 participants) varied from -0·69 (95% CrI -0·86 to -0·52) for amisulpride to -0·17 (-0·31 to -0·04) for brexpiprazole, for negative symptoms (32 015 participants) from -0·62 (-0·84 to -0·39; clozapine) to -0·10 (-0·45 to 0·25; flupentixol), for depressive symptoms (19 683 participants) from -0·90 (-1·36 to -0·44; sulpiride) to 0·04 (-0·39 to 0·47; flupentixol). Risk ratios compared with placebo for all-cause discontinuation (42 672 participants) ranged from 0·52 (0·12 to 0·95; clopenthixol) to 1·15 (0·36 to 1·47; pimozide), for sedation (30 770 participants) from 0·92 (0·17 to 2·03; pimozide) to 10·20 (4·72 to 29·41; zuclopenthixol), for use of antiparkinson medication (24 911 participants) from 0·46 (0·19 to 0·88; clozapine) to 6·14 (4·81 to 6·55; pimozide). Mean differences compared to placebo for weight gain (28 317 participants) ranged from -0·16 kg (-0·73 to 0·40; ziprasidone) to 3·21 kg (2·10 to 4·31; zotepine), for prolactin elevation (21 569 participants) from -77·05 ng/mL (-120·23 to -33·54; clozapine) to 48·51 ng/mL (43·52 to 53·51; paliperidone) and for QTc prolongation (15 467 participants) from -2·21 ms (-4·54 to 0·15; lurasidone) to 23·90 ms (20·56 to 27·33; sertindole). Conclusions for the primary outcome did not substantially change after adjusting for possible effect moderators or in sensitivity analyses (eg, when excluding placebo-controlled studies). The confidence in evidence was often low or very low.
INTERPRETATION: There are some efficacy differences between antipsychotics, but most of them are gradual rather than discrete. Differences in side-effects are more marked. These findings will aid clinicians in balancing risks versus benefits of those drugs available in their countries. They should consider the importance of each outcome, the patients’ medical problems, and preferences.
FUNDING: German Ministry of Education and Research and National Institute for Health Research.
Li C, Chen J, Wang W, Ai M, Zhang Q, Kuang L. Use of isotretinoin and risk of depression in patients with acne: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2019 Jan 21;9(1):e021549. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021549. Erratum in: BMJ Open. 2019 Mar 15;9(3):e021549corr1. PubMed PMID: 30670500; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6347928.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the association between the use of isotretinoin and the risk of depression in patients with acne.
DESIGN: This was a meta-analysis in which the standardised mean difference (SMD) and the relative risk (RR) were used for data synthesis employing the random-effects model.
SETTING: Studies were identified via electronic searches of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library from inception up to 28 December 2017.
PARTICIPANTS: Patients with acne.
INTERVENTIONS: Studies comparing isotretinoin with other interventions in patients with acne were included.
RESULTS: Twenty studies were selected. The analysis of 17 studies showed a significant association of the use of isotretinoin with improved symptoms compared with the baseline before treatment (SMD = -0.33, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.15, p<0.05; I 2=76.6%, p<0.05)). Four studies were related to the analysis of the risk of depression. The pooled data indicated no association of the use of isotretinoin with the risk of depressive disorders (RR=1.15, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.21, p=0.14). The association of the use of isotretinoin with the risk of depressive disorders was statistically significant on pooling retrospective studies (RR=1.39, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.84, p=0.02), but this association was not evident on pooling prospective studies (RR=0.85, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.21, p=0.86).
CONCLUSIONS: This study suggested an association of the use of isotretinoin in patients with acne with significantly improved depression symptoms. Future randomised controlled trials are needed to verify the present findings.
Nasrallah HA, Fedora R, Morton R. Successful treatment of clozapine-nonresponsive refractory hallucinations and delusions with pimavanserin, a serotonin 5HT-2A receptor inverse agonist. Schizophr Res. 2019 Jun;208:217-220. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2019.02.018. Epub 2019 Mar 2. PubMed PMID: 30837203.
BACKGROUND: Clozapine was the widely accepted gold standard treatment for treatment resistant psychotic symptoms. Clozapine has efficacy of about 50% and some responding patients have to discontinue it due to serious adverse effects. The search for novel agents to use for clozapine-non-responders continues. One such possible agent is the non-dopaminergic antipsychotic pimavanserin, an inverse agonist of serotonin 5-HT2A receptors which was recently approved for the hallucinations and delusions of Parkinson’s Disease Psychosis. We report here the successful results of using pimavanserin in patients with refractory hallucinations and delusions who failed to respond to clozapine. We also report similar results in refractory psychosis patients who did not receive clozapine.
METHODS: We present ten cases of patients with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder with refractory hallucinations and delusions who received a trial of pimavanserin when clozapine or multiple antipsychotics failed. Six of ten patients had not responded to a clozapine trial. The subjects’ ages ranged between 21 and 77 years and were followed up for several months.
RESULTS: All 10 patients with refractory hallucinations and delusions showed marked response to pimavanserin 34 mg/day within 4-8 weeks, with continuation of the response for several months of follow-up. Improvements in negative symptoms and social functioning were also observed in several patients.
DISCUSSION: This series of 10 cases of patients with refractory psychosis who responded to pimavanserin is an important new finding that has never been reported before. Controlled studies comparing clozapine and pimavanserin in refractory schizophrenia are warranted to confirm these clinical observations.
Rotem-Kohavi N, Williams LJ, Muller AM, Abdi H, Virji-Babul N, Bjornson BH, Brain U, Werker JF, Grunau RE, Miller SP, Oberlander TF. Hub distribution of the brain functional networks of newborns prenatally exposed to maternal depression and SSRI antidepressants. Depress Anxiety. 2019 Aug;36(8):753-765. doi: 10.1002/da.22906. Epub 2019 May 8. PubMed PMID: 31066992. The person who nominated this paper said the following: “The paper, a product of an amazing group of researchers from British Columbia demonstrated through brain imaging, that prenatal exposure to untreated depression in pregnant women as well as prenatal exposure to SSRIs, are associated with changes in brain functional connectivity in exposed infants. Thus, treating clinicians can share with their patients that fetal exposure does not necessarily mean only exposure to medication – in fact, untreated depression can be viewed as an exposure with developmental implications.”
BACKGROUND: Prenatal maternal depression (PMD) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants are associated with increased developmental risk in infants. Reports suggest that PMD is associated with hyperconnectivity of the insula and the amygdala, while SSRI exposure is associated with hyperconnectivity of the auditory network in the infant brain. However, associations between functional brain organization and PMD and/or SSRI exposure are not well understood.
METHODS: We examined the relation between PMD or SSRI exposure and neonatal brain functional organization. Infants of control (n = 17), depressed SSRI-treated (n = 20) and depressed-only (HAM-D ≥ 8) (n = 16) women, underwent resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging at postnatal Day 6. At 6 months, temperament was assessed using Infant Behavioral Questionnaire (IBQ). We applied GTA and partial least square regression (PLSR) to the resting-state time series to assess group differences in modularity, and connector and provincial hubs.
RESULTS: Modularity was similar across all groups. The depressed-only group showed higher connector hub values in the left anterior cingulate, insula, and caudate as well as higher provincial hub values in the amygdala compared to the control group. The SSRI group showed higher provincial hub values in Heschl’s gyrus relative to the depressed-only group. PLSR showed that newborns’ hub values predicted 10% of the variability in infant temperament at 6 months, suggesting different developmental patterns between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Prenatal exposures to maternal depression and SSRIs have differential impacts on neonatal functional brain organization. Hub values at 6 days predict variance in temperament between infant groups at 6 months of age.
Ruan CJ, Wang CY, Tang YL, Lin SK, Lee ST, Hong KS, Rajkumar AP, Jacob KS, de Leon J. Exploring the Prevalence of Clozapine Phenotypic Poor Metabolizers in 4 Asian Samples: They Ranged Between 2% and 13. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2019 Nov/Dec;39(6):644-648. doi: 10.1097/JCP.0000000000001125. PubMed PMID: 31688448.
PURPOSE/ BACKGROUND: Clozapine clearance is influenced by sex, smoking status, ethnicity, coprescription of inducers or inhibitors, obesity, and inflammation. In 126 Beijing inpatients, we measured repeated trough steady-state serum concentrations and identified 4% (5/126) who were phenotypical poor metabolizers (PMs); none were ultrarapid metabolizers (UMs). They were defined as being 2 SDs beyond the means of total clozapine concentration/dose ratios stratified by sex and smoking. Using this definition, this study explores the prevalence of PMs and UMs using data from 4 already published Asian samples. Three samples were East Asian (Beijing 2, Taipei, and Seoul); one was from South India (Vellore).
FINDINGS/RESULTS: The prevalence of phenotypical PMs ranged from 2% to 13%, but inflammation was not excluded. The prevalence was 7% (14/191) for Beijing 2, 11% (8/70) for Taipei, 13% (9/67) for Seoul, and 2% (2/101) for the Vellore sample. Five phenotypic PMs appeared to be associated with extreme obesity. Phenotypic UM prevalence ranged from 0% to 1.6% but may be partly explained by lack of adherence. A Vellore phenotypic UM appeared to be associated with induction through high coffee intake.
IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 10% of Asians may be clozapine PMs and may need only 50 to 150 mg/d to get therapeutic concentrations. Future studies combining gene sequencing for new alleles with repeated concentrations and careful control of confounders including inhibitors, inflammation, and obesity should provide better estimations of the prevalence of phenotypic clozapine PMs across races. Clozapine UM studies require excluding potent inducers, careful supervision of compliance in inpatient settings, and multiple serum concentrations.
Ruan CJ, Zang YN, Wang CY, Cheng YH, Sun C, Spina E, de Leon J. Clozapine Metabolism in East Asians and Caucasians: A Pilot Exploration of the Prevalence of Poor Metabolizers and a Systematic Review. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2019 Mar/Apr;39(2):135-144. doi: 10.1097/JCP.0000000000001018. PubMed PMID: 30811372.
PURPOSE/ BACKGROUND: Clozapine clearance is influenced by sex, smoking status, ethnicity, coprescription of inducers or inhibitors, obesity, and inflammation. In 126 Beijing inpatients, we measured repeated trough steady-state serum concentrations and identified 4% (5/126) who were phenotypical poor metabolizers (PMs); none were ultrarapid metabolizers (UMs). They were defined as being 2 SDs beyond the means of total clozapine concentration/dose ratios stratified by sex and smoking. Using this definition, this study explores the prevalence of PMs and UMs using data from 4 already published Asian samples. Three samples were East Asian (Beijing 2, Taipei, and Seoul); one was from South India (Vellore).
FINDINGS/RESULTS: The prevalence of phenotypical PMs ranged from 2% to 13%, but inflammation was not excluded. The prevalence was 7% (14/191) for Beijing 2, 11% (8/70) for Taipei, 13% (9/67) for Seoul, and 2% (2/101) for the Vellore sample. Five phenotypic PMs appeared to be associated with extreme obesity. Phenotypic UM prevalence ranged from 0% to 1.6% but may be partly explained by lack of adherence. A Vellore phenotypic UM appeared to be associated with induction through high coffee intake.
IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 10% of Asians may be clozapine PMs and may need only 50 to 150 mg/d to get therapeutic concentrations. Future studies combining gene sequencing for new alleles with repeated concentrations and careful control of confounders including inhibitors, inflammation, and obesity should provide better estimations of the prevalence of phenotypic clozapine PMs across races. Clozapine UM studies require excluding potent inducers, careful supervision of compliance in inpatient settings, and multiple serum concentrations.
Stroup TS, Gerhard T, Crystal S, Huang C, Tan Z, Wall MM, Mathai C, Olfson M. Comparative Effectiveness of Adjunctive Psychotropic Medications in Patients With Schizophrenia. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019 May 1;76(5):508-515. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.4489. PubMed PMID: 30785609; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6495353. The person who nominated this paper wrote: “In schizophrenic patients stabilized on antipsychotic monotherapy, adding an antidepressant was associated with a lower risk of psychiatric hospitalization (different outcome than the analysis above), adding another antipsychotic did not significantly change the hospitalization risk, adding a mood stabilizer did not change hospitalization risk but did increase risk of mortality, but adding a benzodiazepine (often done in clinical practice) increased risk of rehospitalization. It seems that instead of adding a benzo to calm patients, adding a second antipsychotic leads to better outcomes.”
IMPORTANCE: People with schizophrenia are commonly treated with psychotropic medications in addition to antipsychotics, but there is little evidence about the comparative effectiveness of these adjunctive treatment strategies.
OBJECTIVE: To study the comparative real-world effectiveness of adjunctive psychotropic treatments for patients with schizophrenia.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This comparative effectiveness study used US national Medicaid data from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2010, to examine the outcomes of initiating treatment with an antidepressant, a benzodiazepine, a mood stabilizer, or another antipsychotic among adult outpatients (aged 18-64 years) diagnosed with schizophrenia who were stably treated with a single antipsychotic. Data analysis was performed from January 1, 2017, to June 30, 2018. Multinomial logistic regression models were used to estimate propensity scores to balance covariates across the 4 medication groups. Weighted Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to compare treatment outcomes during 365 days on an intention-to-treat basis.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Risk of hospitalization for a mental disorder (primary), emergency department (ED) visits for a mental disorder, and all-cause mortality.
RESULTS: The study cohort included 81 921 adult outpatients diagnosed with schizophrenia (mean [SD] age, 40.7 [12.4] years; 37 515 women [45.8%]) who were stably treated with a single antipsychotic and then initiated use of an antidepressant (n = 31 117), a benzodiazepine (n = 11 941), a mood stabilizer (n = 12 849), or another antipsychotic (n = 26 014) (reference treatment). Compared with initiating use of another antipsychotic, initiating use of an antidepressant was associated with a lower risk (hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 95% CI, 0.80-0.88) of psychiatric hospitalization, whereas initiating use of a benzodiazepine was associated with a higher risk (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.02-1.15); the risk associated with initiating use of a mood stabilizer (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.94-1.03) was not significantly different from initiating use of another antipsychotic. A similar pattern of associations was observed in psychiatric ED visits for initiating use of an antidepressant (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.96), a benzodiazepine (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.07-1.19), and a mood stabilizer (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94-1.04). Initiating use of a mood stabilizer was associated with an increased risk of mortality (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.04-1.66).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In the treatment of schizophrenia, initiating adjunctive treatment with an antidepressant was associated with reduced risk of psychiatric hospitalization and ED visits compared with initiating use of alternative psychotropic medications. Associations of benzodiazepines and mood stabilizers with poorer outcomes warrant clinical caution and further investigation.
Tiihonen J, Taipale H, Mehtälä J, Vattulainen P, Correll CU, Tanskanen A. Association of Antipsychotic Polypharmacy vs Monotherapy With Psychiatric Rehospitalization Among Adults With Schizophrenia. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019 May 1;76(5):499-507. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.4320. PubMed PMID: 30785608; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6495354. The person who nominated this paper wrote: “The standard preaching (including insurance company reviews) is to avoid antipsychotic polypharmacy. However, this paper using a large data set, showed the opposite, that antipsychotic polypharmacy was associated with a lower risk of rehospitalization than monotherapy.”
IMPORTANCE: The effectiveness of antipsychotic polypharmacy in schizophrenia relapse prevention is controversial, and use of multiple agents is generally believed to impair physical well-being.
OBJECTIVE: To study the association of specific antipsychotic combinations with psychiatric rehospitalization.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this nationwide cohort study, the risk of psychiatric rehospitalization was used as a marker for relapse among 62 250 patients with schizophrenia during the use of 29 different antipsychotic monotherapy and polypharmacy types between January 1, 1996, and December 31, 2015, in a comprehensive, nationwide cohort in Finland. We conducted analysis of the data from April 24 to June 15, 2018. Rehospitalization risks were investigated by using within-individual analyses to minimize selection bias.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Hazard ratio (HR) for psychiatric rehospitalization during use of polypharmacy vs during monotherapy within the same individual.
RESULTS: In the total cohort, including 62 250 patients, 31 257 individuals (50.2%) were men, and the median age was 45.6 (interquartile range, 34.6-57.9) years. The clozapine plus aripiprazole combination was associated with the lowest risk of psychiatric rehospitalization in the total cohort, being superior to clozapine, the monotherapy associated with the best outcomes, with a difference of 14% (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.79-0.94) in the analysis including all polypharmacy periods, and 18% in the conservatively defined polypharmacy analysis excluding periods shorter than 90 days (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.75-0.89; P < .001). Among patients with their first episode of schizophrenia, these differences between clozapine plus aripiprazole vs clozapine monotherapy were greater (difference, 22%; HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63-0.96 in the analysis including all polypharmacy periods, and difference, 23%; HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.63-0.95 in the conservatively defined polypharmacy analysis). At the aggregate level, any antipsychotic polypharmacy was associated with a 7% to 13% lower risk of psychiatric rehospitalization compared with any monotherapy (ranging from HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.85-0.88, to HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.91-0.95; P < .001). Clozapine was the only monotherapy among the 10 best treatments. Results on all-cause and somatic hospitalization, mortality, and other sensitivity analyses were in line with the primary outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Combining aripiprazole with clozapine was associated with the lowest risk of rehospitalization, indicating that certain types of polypharmacy may be feasible in the treatment of schizophrenia. Because add-on treatments are started when monotherapy is no longer sufficient to control for worsening of symptoms, it is likely that the effect sizes for polypharmacy are underestimates. Although the results do not indicate that all types of polypharmacy are beneficial, the current treatment guidelines should modify their categorical recommendations discouraging all antipsychotic polypharmacy in the maintenance treatment of schizophrenia.
Zisook S, Johnson GR, Tal I, Hicks P, Chen P, Davis L, Thase M, Zhao Y, Vertrees J, Mohamed S. General Predictors and Moderators of Depression Remission: A VAST-D Report. Am J Psychiatry. 2019 May 1;176(5):348-357. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2018.18091079. Epub 2019 Apr 5. PubMed PMID: 30947531.
OBJECTIVE: Almost two-thirds of patients with major depressive disorder do not achieve remission with initial treatments. Thus, identifying and providing effective, feasible, and safe “next-step” treatments are clinical imperatives. This study explores patient baseline features that might help clinicians select between commonly used next-step treatments.
METHODS: The authors used data from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Augmentation and Switching Treatments for Improving Depression Outcomes (VAST-D) study, a multisite, randomized, single-blind trial of 1,522 Veterans Health Administration patients who did not have an adequate response to at least one course of antidepressant treatment meeting minimal standards for dosage and duration. For 12 weeks, participants received one of three possible next-step treatments: switch to another antidepressant-sustained-release bupropion; combination with another antidepressant-sustained-release bupropion; or augmentation with an antipsychotic-aripiprazole. Life table regression models were used to identify baseline characteristics associated with remission overall (general predictors) and their interaction with remission among the three treatment groups (moderators).
RESULTS: Remission was more likely for individuals who were employed, less severely and chronically depressed, less anxious, not experiencing complicated grief symptoms, did not experience childhood adversity, and had better quality of life and positive mental health. Two features suggested specific next-step treatment selections: age ≥65 years (for whom augmentation with aripiprazole was more effective than switch to bupropion) and severe mixed hypomanic symptoms (for which augmentation with aripiprazole and combination with bupropion were more effective than switch to bupropion).
CONCLUSIONS: If replicated, these preliminary findings could help clinicians determine which patients with depression requiring next-step treatment will benefit most from a specific augmentation, combination, or switching strategy.
Related Pages
Annual Minerva award for the best paper
Minerva award winners and commended papers 2019
Minerva award winners and commended papers 2018
Copyright © 2020, Simple and Practical Medical Education, LLC, and Rajnish Mago, MD. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without express written permission.
Disclaimer: The content on this website is provided as general education for medical professionals. It is not intended or recommended for patients or other laypersons or as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Patients must always consult a qualified health care professional regarding their diagnosis and treatment. Healthcare professionals should always check this website for the most recently updated information.
Leave a Reply: