Explore the vast range of titles available.

In a randomized trial involving 59 selected patients with depression, the change in depression scale scores from baseline to week 6 did not differ significantly between patients who received two doses of psilocybin and those who received daily escitalopram. Secondary outcomes generally favored psilocybin over escitalopram.

To investigate the association between pre-trial expectancy, suggestibility, and response to treatment in a trial of escitalopram and investigational drug, COMP360, psilocybin, in the treatment of major depressive disorder (ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT03429075). We used data ( = 55) from our recent double-blind, parallel-group, randomized head-to-head comparison trial of escitalopram and investigational drug, COMP360, psilocybin. Mixed linear models were used to investigate the association between pre-treatment efficacy-related expectations, as well as baseline trait suggestibility and absorption, and therapeutic response to both escitalopram and COMP360 psilocybin. Patients had significantly higher expectancy for psilocybin relative to escitalopram; however, expectancy for escitalopram was associated with improved therapeutic outcomes to escitalopram, expectancy for psilocybin was not predictive of response to psilocybin. Separately, we found that pre-treatment trait suggestibility was associated with therapeutic response in the psilocybin arm, but not in the escitalopram arm. Overall, our results suggest that psychedelic therapy may be less vulnerable to expectancy biases than previously suspected. The relationship between baseline trait suggestibility and response to psilocybin therapy implies that highly suggestible individuals may be primed for response to this treatment.

About one-third of patients with depression fail to achieve remission despite treatment with multiple antidepressants and are considered to have treatment-resistant depression. This Phase 3, double-blind, multicenter study enrolled adults with moderate-to-severe depression and nonresponse to ≥2 antidepressants in the current depression episode. Eligible patients (N = 346) were randomized (1:1:1) to twice-weekly nasal spray treatment (esketamine [56 or 84 mg] or placebo) plus a newly initiated, open-label, oral antidepressant taken daily for 4 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to day 28 in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score, performed by blinded, remote raters. Based on the predefined statistical testing sequence, esketamine 84 mg/antidepressant had to be significant for esketamine 56 mg/antidepressant to be formally tested. Statistical significance was not achieved with esketamine 84 mg/antidepressant compared with antidepressant/placebo (least squares [LS] means difference [95% CI]: -3.2 [-6.88, 0.45]; 2-sided P value = .088). Although esketamine 56 mg/antidepressant could not be formally tested, the LS means difference was -4.1 [-7.67, -0.49] (nominal 2-sided P value = .027). The most common (>20%) adverse events reported for esketamine/antidepressant were nausea, dissociation, dizziness, vertigo, and headache. Statistical significance was not achieved for the primary endpoint; nevertheless, the treatment effect (Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale) for both esketamine/antidepressant groups exceeded what has been considered clinically meaningful for approved antidepressants vs placebo. Safety was similar between esketamine/antidepressant groups and no new dose-related safety concerns were identified. This study provides supportive evidence for the safety and efficacy of esketamine nasal spray as a new, rapid-acting antidepressant for patients with treatment-resistant depression. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02417064.

Electrical direct-current stimulation applied to the cranium was not shown to be noninferior to escitalopram for major depression. Direct current and escitalopram were superior to placebo, but the electrical treatment was associated with adverse events, including mania. Major depressive disorder is a highly prevalent condition. 1 There is interest in the effectiveness and safety of new and nonpharmacologic treatments for depression. In 2009, transcranial magnetic stimulation was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of major depressive disorder. 2 The procedure has had mixed results in various trials, 3 is associated with a small risk of seizure, 4 and is costly. Transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) is a noninvasive brain-stimulation technique that is less costly than transcranial magnetic stimulation and has not been associated with seizures. 5 In this procedure, weak, direct current is applied through electrodes that are placed . . .

Although major depressive disorder (MDD) is associated with altered functional coupling between disparate neural networks, the degree to which such measures are ameliorated by antidepressant treatment is unclear. It is also unclear whether functional connectivity can be used as a predictive biomarker of treatment response. Here, we used whole-brain functional connectivity analysis to identify neural signatures of remission following antidepressant treatment, and to identify connectomic predictors of treatment response. 163 MDD and 62 healthy individuals underwent functional MRI during pre-treatment baseline and 8-week follow-up sessions. Patients were randomized to escitalopram, sertraline or venlafaxine-XR antidepressants and assessed at follow-up for remission. Baseline measures of intrinsic functional connectivity between each pair of 333 regions were analyzed to identify pre-treatment connectomic features that distinguish remitters from non-remitters. We then interrogated these connectomic differences to determine if they changed post-treatment, distinguished patients from controls, and were modulated by medication type. Irrespective of medication type, remitters were distinguished from non-remitters by greater connectivity within the default mode network (DMN); specifically, between the DMN, fronto-parietal and somatomotor networks, the DMN and visual, limbic, auditory and ventral attention networks, and between the fronto-parietal and somatomotor networks with cingulo-opercular and dorsal attention networks. This baseline hypo-connectivity for non-remitters also distinguished them from controls and increased following treatment. In contrast, connectivity for remitters was higher than controls at baseline and also following remission, suggesting a trait-like connectomic characteristic. Increased functional connectivity within and between large-scale intrinsic brain networks may characterize acute recovery with antidepressants in depression.

In a trial in the United Kingdom, patients with depression who were being treated in primary care practices and who felt well enough to discontinue antidepressant therapy were randomly assigned to maintain their current antidepressant therapy or to discontinue such therapy. By 1 year, relapse had occurred in 39% of patients in the maintenance group and in 56% in the discontinuation group.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are widely used for treating neuropsychiatric disorders. However, the exact mechanism of action and why effects can take several weeks to manifest is not clear. The hypothesis of neuroplasticity is supported by preclinical studies, but the evidence in humans is limited. Here, we investigate the effects of the SSRI escitalopram on presynaptic density as a proxy for synaptic plasticity. In a double-blind placebo-controlled study (NCT04239339), 32 healthy participants with no history of psychiatric or cognitive disorders were randomized to receive daily oral dosing of either 20 mg escitalopram ( n  = 17) or a placebo ( n  = 15). After an intervention period of 3–5 weeks, participants underwent a [ 11 C]UCB-J PET scan (29 with full arterial input function) to quantify synaptic vesicle glycoprotein 2A (SV2A) density in the hippocampus and the neocortex. Whereas we find no statistically significant group difference in SV2A binding after an average of 29 (range: 24–38) days of intervention, our secondary analyses show a time-dependent effect of escitalopram on cerebral SV2A binding with positive associations between [ 11 C]UCB-J binding and duration of escitalopram intervention. Our findings suggest that brain synaptic plasticity evolves over 3–5 weeks in healthy humans following daily intake of escitalopram. This is the first in vivo evidence to support the hypothesis of neuroplasticity as a mechanism of action for SSRIs in humans and it offers a plausible biological explanation for the delayed treatment response commonly observed in patients treated with SSRIs. While replication is warranted, these results have important implications for the design of future clinical studies investigating the neurobiological effects of SSRIs.

Citalopram is effective in treating agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia (AD), but it is associated with cognitive and cardiac risks, likely due to its R -enantiomer. Escitalopram, the S -enantiomer, may be an alternative. In this double-masked randomized (1:1) placebo-controlled trial, we assessed the efficacy and safety of escitalopram in treating agitation in AD after failure of a psychosocial intervention (PSI). Assessments occurred at enrollment, post-PSI (baseline) and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 weeks post-baseline. Settings were 27 community-based centers. The target randomization sample was 392 participants. Participants were adults with AD, a Mini-Mental State Examination Telephone score of 3–20 and significant agitation. PSI non-responders received escitalopram (up to 15 mg per day) or placebo for 12 weeks while continuing PSI. The outcome was the proportion of participants with clinically significant improvement in agitation from baseline at 12 weeks. In total, 173 participants were randomized (84 escitalopram versus 89 placebo; mean ± s.d. age = 78.4 ± 8.7 years; 90 men (52.0%); 127 White (73.4%)). The unadjusted risk difference at 12 weeks was 0.08 (95% confidence interval: −0.21, 0.06). Drug-related QT interval prolongation was observed. Although the randomized sample was smaller than planned, escitalopram was not effective in treating agitation in AD and was associated with cardiac conduction delays. Clinicians need to be cautious in recommending escitalopram as an alternative to citalopram for this condition. ClincialTrials.gov identifier: NCT03108846 . Results from a phase 3 randomized controlled trial suggest that escitalopram is not effective in treating agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia and is associated with cardiac conduction delays.

Abstract Study Objective: To compare cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) + antidepressant medication (AD) against treatments that target solely depression or solely insomnia. Design: A blinded, randomized split-plot experimental study. Setting: Two urban academic clinical centers. Participants: 107 participants (68% female, mean age 42 ± 11) with major depressive disorder and insomnia. Interventions: Randomization was to one of three groups: antidepressant (AD; escitalopram) + CBT-I (4 sessions), CBT-I + placebo pill, or AD + 4-session sleep hygiene control (SH). Measurements and Results: Subjective sleep was assessed via 2 weeks of daily sleep diaries (use of medication was covaried in all analyses); although there were no statistically significant group differences detected, all groups improved from baseline to posttreatment on subjective sleep efficiency (SE) and total wake time (TWT) and the effect sizes were large. Objective sleep was assessed via overnight polysomnographic monitoring at baseline and posttreatment; analyses revealed both CBT groups improved on TWT (p = .03), but the AD + SH group worsened. There was no statistically significant effect for PSG SE (p = .07). There was a between groups medium effect observed for the AD + SH and CBT + placebo group differences on diary TWT and both PSG variables. All groups improved significantly from baseline to posttreatment on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD-17); the groups did not differ. Conclusions: Although all groups self-reported sleeping better after treatment, only the CBT-I groups improved on objective sleep, and AD + SH’s sleep worsened. This suggests that we should be treating sleep in those with depression with an effective insomnia treatment and relying on self-report obscures sleep worsening effects. All groups improved on depression, even a group with absolutely no depression-focused treatment component (CBT-I + placebo). The depression effect in CBT-I only group has been reported in other studies, suggesting that we should further investigate the antidepressant properties of CBT-I.

Although clinicians frequently add a second medication to an ineffective antidepressant, randomized trials comparing augmentation medications are lacking. In this study, adult outpatients with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder who had not had a remission during citalopram therapy were assigned to sustained-release bupropion or buspirone and had similar remission rates on the basis of clinician and self-reports. Several important secondary measures favored citalopram plus bupropion over citalopram plus buspirone. Adult outpatients with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder who had not had a remission during citalopram therapy were assigned to bupropion or buspirone and had similar remission rates. Several important secondary measures favored citalopram plus bupropion over citalopram plus buspirone. Numerous studies, 1 – 7 including one by Rush et al. 8 reported elsewhere in this issue of the Journal, have shown that major depressive disorder often requires more than one step of treatment to elicit a remission of symptoms. Frequently, a second medication is added to augment the first. 4 , 6 Augmentations of an initial selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) with sustained-release bupropion, buspirone, mirtazapine, or dopamine agonists (e.g., pramipexole, dextroamphetamine, and methylphenidate) have been evaluated largely in open case series conducted in symptomatic volunteers with few psychiatric or general medical coexisting illnesses. 9 No randomized, controlled, prospective trials have directly compared two or more . . .