Biomedical subjects

Joyce Tedlow

Publications and source records attributed to Joyce Tedlow.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2003

Lithium augmentation of nortriptyline for subjects resistant to multiple antidepressants.

Lithium augmentation, the most studied augmentation strategy for depression, has not been evaluated in patients with a history of non-response to multiple antidepressants. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of lithium augmentation for patients with a history of treatment resistant depression who also failed a prospective trial of nortriptyline. We enrolled 92 subjects with treatment resistant depression. Treatment resistance was defined by at least one, but no more than five, adequate trials of antidepressants during the current episode. Subjects were treated with nortriptyline (NT) for 6 weeks. Those subjects who tolerated NT for 6 weeks and whose depression did not respond (n=35) were randomized to receive either lithium (n=18) or placebo (N=17) augmentation of nortriptyline for an additional 6 weeks. Response was defined as an equal to or greater than 50% decrease in HAM-D-17 scores. After 6 weeks of double-blind augmentation, 12.5 % of subjects responded to lithium and 20.0% to placebo. Our results revealed no significant difference between lithium and placebo augmentation. While lithium augmentation seems to be useful in depression refractory to a single medication in some studies, our data suggest limited usefulness of this option for patients refractory to multiple treatments. More definitive data await the outcome of the NIMH Sequential Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2003

Nortriptyline for treatment-resistant depression.

BACKGROUND: Up to 30% of patients with major depression fail to respond to an antidepressant trial, with most taking a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) as initial treatment. While the tricyclic antidepressants might be effective for SSRI nonresponders, they have been relegated to third- and fourth-line treatment. This study assesses the efficacy of nortriptyline for patients with treatment-resistant major depression. METHOD: 92 patients with treatment-resistant DSM-III-R major depression, with resistance defined by at least 1, but no more than 5, well-documented adequate trials of antidepressants during the current episode, were treated openly with nortriptyline for 6 weeks. Patients were titrated up to full target doses of nortriptyline within 1 week, with target blood levels of 100 ng/mL. Response was defined as a 50% or greater decrease of baseline 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score. We performed an intent-to-treat analysis with the last observation carried forward. RESULTS: Approximately 40% of patients were responders (N = 39) and 12% were remitters (N = 11) after 6 weeks of nortriptyline. Over a third of patients were unable to complete the trial. CONCLUSION: Nortriptyline was effective for over a third of patients with treatment-resistant depression, and nortriptyline should be considered as potential treatment if patients fail to respond to other antidepressants.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2002

Double-blind study of high-dose fluoxetine versus lithium or desipramine augmentation of fluoxetine in partial responders and nonresponders to fluoxetine.

In a previous study, of 41 depressed patients who had not responded to fluoxetine 20 mg/day, 53% were treated with high-dose fluoxetine (40-60 mg/ day) and responded (i.e., their 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HAM-D-17] score was <7) versus 29% and 25% of patients treated with fluoxetine plus lithium (300-600 mg/day) or fluoxetine plus desipramine (25-50 mg/day), respectively. We wanted to assess whether these findings could be replicated in a larger sample of depressed outpatients. We identified 101 outpatients with major depressive disorder (52 men and 49 women; mean age, 41.6 + 10.6 years) who were either partial responders (n = 49) or nonresponders (n = 52) to 8 weeks of treatment with fluoxetine 20 mg/ day. These patients were randomized to 4 weeks of double-blind treatment with high-dose fluoxetine (40-60 mg/day), fluoxetine plus lithium (300-600 mg/day), or fluoxetine plus desipramine (25-50 mg/day). In the overall group of patients (N = 101), there was no significant difference in response rates across the three treatment groups (high-dose fluoxetine, 42.4%; fluoxetine plus desipramine, 29.4%; fluoxetine plus lithium, 23.5%). Dropout rates were also comparable, ranging from 9.1% (high-dose fluoxetine) to 14.7% (fluoxetine plus desipramine and fluoxetine plus lithium). There were also no significant differences in response rates across the three treatment groups among partial responders (high-dose fluoxetine, 50.0%; fluoxetine plus desipramine, 33.3%; fluoxetine plus lithium, 33.3%) and nonresponders (high-dose fluoxetine, 35.3%; fluoxetine plus desipramine, 26.3%; fluoxetine plus lithium, 12.5%). At the end of the study, the mean lithium level was 0.37 + 0.15 mEq/L (n = 27; range, 0.1-0.8 mEq/L) among lithium-treated patients, and the mean desipramine level was 104.7 + 58.8 ng/mL (n = 22; range, 25-257 ng/mL). There were no significant relationships between lithium or desipramine blood levels and degree of improvement (as measured by the change in HAM-D-17 score). We found no significant differences in efficacy among these three treatment strategies among patients who had failed to respond adequately to 8 weeks of treatment with fluoxetine 20 mg/day, although the high-fluoxetine group was associated with nonsignificantly higher response rates in both partial responders and nonresponders.

Adult↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Melancholia and axis II comorbidity.

This study assessed whether the rates of comorbid personality disorders differed between DSM-IV melancholic and nonmelancholic major depressive disorder. We evaluated 260 consecutive depressed outpatients (140 women [53.8%]; mean age, 39.01 +/- 10.4 years) with DSM-III-R major depressive disorder (MDD). MDD was diagnosed with the use of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R-Patient Edition (SCID-P); enrolled patients were required to have a score >/= 16 on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-17). The presence of the melancholic subtype of major depression was determined with the use of a DSM-IV checklist, while the presence of personality disorders was assessed using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R-Personality Disorders (SCID-II). Of the 102 (39.2%) patients who met criteria for melancholic depression and the 158 (60.7%) who did not, there were no significant differences in age, gender, or rates of personality disorder diagnoses. We observed no significant difference in rates of individual personality disorder clusters between melancholic and nonmelancholic depressed patients. Our findings of comparable rates of comorbid personality disorders between melancholic and nonmelancholic depression are consistent with the decision made by the DSM-IV task force to drop the DSM-III-R melancholic feature criterion of "no significant personality disturbance before first major depressive episode" as they challenge the usefulness of trying to establish such absence of premorbid personality features in acutely depressed patients.

Adolescent↗