News

For severe depression, cognitive plus medical therapy beats antidepressants alone

View on the News

Addressing needs of patients who do not remit is still key

The study’s findings are encouraging in their own right – but might also help elucidate some contradictory findings from past studies, Dr. Michael E. Thase wrote in an accompanying editorial (JAMA Psychiatry 2014 Aug. 20 [doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.1524]).

The "modest overall treatment advantage," which would have been somewhat disappointing in itself, "obscured larger and even more clinically meaningful differences in outcome as a function of severity of depressive symptoms and chronicity of depressive episodes."

But the authors’ subanalysis uncovered the true benefit of combination therapy – and also revealed an insight into prior studies with conflicting results.

"If one accepts that the effects of combined treatment are moderated by severity and chronicity, it is plausible that the studies that observed the smallest effects in favor of combined treatment may have been the ones that enrolled disproportionately larger numbers of patients with mild or chronic depression."

A 29% treatment effect in favor of combination therapy (81% vs.52%), is "a very large effect, especially with such a small number needed to treat."

Therefore, the results of this study – and those of the large STAR*D (Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression) trial – provide "ggrounds for therapeutic optimism. They are not, however, a reason to cease striving.

"We do need better treatment options for those who do not remit with conventional antidepressant strategies and addressing this unmet need is arguably the top priority for our research agenda."

Dr. Michael Thase is a professor of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. He had no disclosures relevant to his editorial.


 

FROM JAMA PSYCHIATRY

References

Compared with medication alone, the combination of optimized medical treatment and cognitive therapy affected a high rate of recovery for patients with severe, nonchronic major depressive disorder.

Although the combination didn’t significantly benefit patients with less severe or chronic depression, it doubled recovery rates among those with the most severe symptoms. The number needed to treat to achieve one recovery in this group was just three, Steven D. Hollon, Ph.D., and his colleagues reported Aug. 20 in the journal (JAMA Psychiatry 2014 [doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.1054]).

The failure to observe a significant benefit among those less severely and chronically depressed patients disappointed, wrote Dr. Hollon, who is the Gertrude Conaway Professor of Psychology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

But this dichotomy could be employed as a way to pinpoint those most likely to respond to the combination.

"[These moderators] could be used prescriptively to guide a more efficient allocation of treatment resources. Given the higher cost of combined treatment, it might be reserved for patients with nonchronic, more severe depression. Such a recommendation would be consistent with the goals of personalized medicine; patients are given what they most need and costly resources are reserved for those likely to benefit from them."

The 42-month trial randomized 452 patients with chronic or recurrent major depressive disorder to optimized antidepressant treatment or antidepressants plus cognitive therapy. They were a mean of 43 years old with a mean score of 22 on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD). Recurrent depression was present in 83%; chronic, in 35%. The overall dropout rate was 23%, but attrition was significantly lower in the combination group (19% vs. 27%).

Overall, the rates of remission did not significantly differ between the groups. However, recovery was significantly more common among those who had the combination therapy (73% vs. 63%; hazard ratio, 1.33), with a number needed to treat of 10.

An exploratory analysis determined that the timing of depression and its severity significantly influenced outcomes. Among those with either less severe depression or high-severity chronic depression, the treatment effect was small. But among those with severe, nonchronic depression, a significant benefit was found. The recovery rate for these patients was significantly higher with combination therapy (81% vs. 52%; HR, 2.34), with a number needed to treat of three.

Patients in the combination treatment group also experienced significantly fewer serious adverse events, probably because they spent less time in major depressive episodes, the authors suggested.

Dr. Hollon reported no financial disclosures. However, his coauthors reported relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies. The National Institutes of Mental Health funded the study. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals and Pfizer provided some study medications.

msullivan@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @alz_gal

Recommended Reading

Dissociation found to mediate ketamine’s antidepressive effects
MDedge Psychiatry
Telecare intervention lessens chronic joint pain
MDedge Psychiatry
Three simple questions can screen for suicide risk in ED patients
MDedge Psychiatry
Opioid use remits, depression remains
MDedge Psychiatry
A cognitive-behavioral strategy for preventing suicide
MDedge Psychiatry
Guidelines for treating survivors of suicide
MDedge Psychiatry
Depression may run with opiate use in patients with ankylosing spondylitis
MDedge Psychiatry
Telepsychiatry is a tool that we must exploit
MDedge Psychiatry
Behavioral coaching boosted diabetes self-management in depressed patients
MDedge Psychiatry
Suicide linked to poor sleep in older patients
MDedge Psychiatry