Although adverse environments are well known to be a risk factor for psychopathology, many individuals respond adaptively to such environments. There is growing interest in the underlying mechanisms involved in such resilience. Several cognitive-affective processes may be involved, and these may be mediated by particular neuronal circuits and neurochemical systems. This article summarizes some of the relevant work on the role of fear conditioning, reward processing, and social behavior in resilience. There is a growing body of data on how particular gene-environment interactions affect these processes, and thus underpin resilience. Ultimately, a better understanding of the mechanisms underpinning resilience may lead to novel interventions.

It is estimated that 15 million Americans have a depressive disorder, including major depressive disorder, and many of those afflicted do not receive recommended guideline levels of care. Of patients who are correctly diagnosed with depression, a majority of patients do not recover by 4-6 months, often due to discontinuing treatment prior to the initiation of therapeutic effect. It is important for clinicians to understand the factors involved in nonadherence to treatment for the depressive disorders, including presence of residual symptoms, younger age, and less educational attainment. Once clinicians believe a patient is at risk for nonadherence—which is the rule rather than the exception—health care professionals have various techniques available to increase treatment adherence, including communication techniques and other health care interventions.

In this Expert Panel Supplement, Richard C. Shelton, MD, reviews data from the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression study to determine the role residual depressive symptoms have in causing patients to become nonadherent to treatment as well as defines characteristics common to patients who discontinue their medications. Steven R. Hahn, MD, outlines several strategies for improving adherence among patients, including a four-step process to bolster patient comfort with treatment guidelines and “Ask-Tell-Ask,” a communication technique aimed to provide clinicians additional understanding as to patient attitudes and beliefs. Finally, Wayne J. Katon, MD, describes how collaborative care—a health care model that involves not only primary care but also additional health care providers in patient treatment—can be beneficial in improving adherence by providing further patient education and additional screening to ensure that patients remain adherent to antidepressants.

Introduction: This research compares the efficacy and safety of desvenlafaxine (administered as desvenlafaxine succinate) versus placebo in treating major depressive disorder.

Methods: In this randomized, double-blind study, outpatients with major depressive disorder ≥18 years of age received desvenlafaxine 200–400 mg/day or placebo for 8 weeks. Efficacy endpoints included (primary) change in 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score at the final evaluation (last observation carried forward, analysis of covariance) and (secondary) Clinical Global Impressions—Improvement and—Severity of Illness scales.

Results: The difference between desvenlafaxine (n=117) and placebo (n=118) on the primary endpoint was not significant (−9.1 vs −7.5, P=.078). Week 8 observed cases (desvenlafaxine, n=80; placebo, n=94) results were significant (−10.7 vs −7.9, P=.008). Differences at the final evaluation (last observation carried forward) were significant for Clinical Global Impressions—Improvement (2.9 vs 2.5, P=.037) and Clinical Global Impressions—Severity of Illness (−1.9 vs −1.2, P=.041). Discontinuation rates due to adverse events (AEs) were 12% and 3% for desvenlafaxine and placebo, respectively (P=.008). The most frequently reported AE associated with desvenlafaxine was nausea (36% vs 9% [placebo]).

Conclusion: In this study, the primary analysis did not show significant differences between desvenlafaxine and placebo; discontinuations due to AEs associated with the desvenlafaxine dose range may have contributed to the lack of statistical separation.

Beginning this month and appearing periodically in future columns, “Trends in Psychopharmacology” will cover a new concept and hot topic in the field, namely, that of “multifunctional drugs.” The concept is presented in overview here. Future installments will cover specific drugs in greater depth. Multifunctional drugs include those agents with more than one putative therapeutic mechanism of action.

Introduction: The safety and tolerability profiles of antidepressants can often influence the treatment choices of clinicians treating major depressive disorder. The purpose of this investigation was to characterize the safety and tolerability of desvenlafaxine (administered as desvenlafaxine succinate) in treating depression.

Methods: An integrated analysis of all short-term, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled registration studies for major depressive disorder (four flexible-dose and five fixed-dose studies) was performed. Adult outpatients with major depressive disorder received desvenla-faxine doses ranging from 50–400 mg/day or placebo for 8 weeks. Treatment-emergent adverse events, laboratory values, vital signs, and discontinuation symptoms were evaluated. In the subset of fixed-dose studies, dose-related effects were analyzed.

Results: In the overall population (placebo: n=1,116; desvenlafaxine: n=1,834), adverse events resulted in discontinuations in 3% of placebo-treated patients and 12% of desvenla-faxine-treated patients; in the subset of fixed-dose studies, the rates were 4% with placebo and increased with desvenlafaxine dose (50 mg/ day: 4%; 400 mg/day: 18%). The most common treatment-emergent adverse event was transient nausea that was generally mild to moderate. The most common sexual dysfunction associated with desvenlafaxine treatment was erectile dysfunction in men (7% vs 1% with placebo) and anorgasmia in women (1% and 0%). One desvenlafaxine-treated patient died of a completed suicide; there were four suicide attempts (three desvenlafaxine, one placebo) and eight cases of suicidal ideation (five desvenlafaxine, three placebo) during the on-therapy period. Small but statistically significant changes in mean blood pressure occurred at all desvenlafaxine doses; clinically meaningful changes were observed in 1% of placebo-treated patients and 2% of desvenlafaxine-treated patients. Desvenlafaxine was associated with small but statistically significant mean changes in laboratory assessments, particularly lipid and liver enzyme elevations, and electrocardiograms; few cases of these changes were clinically relevant.

Conclusion: Desvenlafaxine in the treatment of major depressive disorder exhibited a safety and tolerability profile generally consistent with the serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor class. The most common adverse event was transient nausea. At the recommended therapeutic dose of 50 mg/day, discontinuation due to adverse events was similar to placebo.

Introduction: An increasing amount of data suggests that dysregulation of the immune system, including the cytokine network, is associated with the etiology and pathophysiology of mood disorders. Genes encoding cytokines are highly polymorphic and single nucleotide polymorphisms, associated with increased or reduced cytokine production, have been described. The aim of this study was to define the genetic immunologic scenario associated with major depressive disorder (MDD) and bipolar disorder.

Methods: Eighty-four Italian outpatients affected by bipolar disorder type I, bipolar disorder type II, or MDD, and 363 healthy controls were enrolled into the study. We analyzed allele and genotype distribution of −308 (G/A) tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), +874 (T/A) interferon-γ (IFN-γ), -174 (G/C) interleukin (IL)-6, and −1082 (G/A) IL-10 promoter polymorphisms by Polymerase Chain Reaction Sequence Specific Primers technique.

Results: We observed different genotype and allele distributions of TNF-α, IFN-γ, and IL-10 polymorphisms in the three groups of patients analyzed. In particular, bipolar II patients were characterized by an absence of adenine (A) high producer allele of TNF-α (P<.001) and a lower percentage of TT high producer genotype of IFN-γ (P <.001); bipolar I individuals showed reduced percentage of AA low producer genotype of IL-10 (P<.001). Both bipolar I and bipolar II patients not carrying guanine (G) high producer IL-6 allele showed a lower mean age at onset (P=.048).

Conclusion: These data support the existence of a genetic profile related to pro-inflammatory cytokines in patients affected by mood disorders. The differences observed across the three clinical phenotypes suggest the presence of different pathogenetic mechanisms involved in the susceptibility of phenotypically different mood disorders.

Objective: To evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) in the treatment of adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

Methods: Following a 4-week, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial, 349 adults with ADHD were enrolled into an open-label, single-arm study for up to 12 months. Treatment was initiated at 30 mg/day and titrated up to 70 mg/day at subsequent visits to achieve optimal effectiveness and tolerability. Safety assessments included adverse events inquiries, vital signs, and electrocardiograms while the primary effectiveness assessment was the ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS) total score.

Results: A total of 191 (54.7%) subjects completed the study. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were upper respiratory tract infection (21.8%), insomnia (19.5%), headache (17.2%), dry mouth (16.6%), decreased appetite (14.3%), and irritability (11.2%). Most TEAEs were mild to moderate in severity. At endpoint, small but statistically significant increases in pulse and blood pressure were noted. Significant improvements in mean ADHD-RS total scores were observed at week 1 and sustained throughout the study (P<.0001 at all postbaseline visits). At endpoint, the mean improvement from baseline ADHD-RS total score was 24.8 (P<.0001).

Conclusions: LDX demonstrated a safety profile consistent with long-acting stimulant use and provided continued effectiveness in adults with ADHD for up to 12 months.

Objective: To assess the frequency of suicidal ideation and suicide attempts in patients with Parkinson's disease.

Methods: The Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) were administered to 90 consecutive, non-demented Parkinson's disease patients. They were also submitted to a complete neurologic examination which included brief cognitive batteries, the Mini Mental Status Exam, and Frontal Assessment Battery. We analyzed the scores of the section of the MINI related to the risk of suicide as well as the specific questions of BDI and HAM-D concerning suicidal ideation.

Results: No patient had ever attempted suicide. According to MINI, suicidal ideation was present in 13 patients (14.4%) with Parkinson's disease. All instruments assessed the risk of suicide in a similar way. Suicidal ideation was associated only with lower age (P=.022), lower age of Parkinson's disease onset (P=.021), panic disorder (P=.004), social anxiety disorder (P=.007), and major depression (P<.001). Logistic regression analysis indicated that major depression was the main predictor of suicidal ideation.

Conclusion: Suicide attempts seem to be uncommon in Parkinson's disease, despite the fact that the rates of suicidal ideation are possibly elevated. Depression seems to be the most important predictor of suicidal ideation in Parkinson's disease.

Introduction: Effective management of major depressive disorder (MDD) continues to be a challenging task for psychiatrists and primary care physicians. This trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of adjunctive aripiprazole versus antidepressant monotherapy in patients with MDD and independently replicated the positive findings of two similar trials.

Methods: Patients (N=1, 147) with MDD experiencing a major depressive episode and a history of inadequate response to antidepressant monotherapy were enrolled (week 0); 827 received single-blind adjunctive placebo plus open-label antidepressant (escitalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine controlled release, sertraline, or venlafaxine extended release) for 8 weeks to confirm inadequate response to antidepressants; 349 patients with inadequate response were randomized (1:1) to double-blind, adjunctive placebo (n=172) or adjunctive aripiprazole (n=177; 2–20 mg/day). Primary outcome was the mean change in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) Total score from baseline (week 8) to endpoint (week 14).

Results: Clinically significant improvements in depressive symptoms as assessed by decreases in the MADRS Total score were greater with adjunctive aripiprazole (−10.1) than placebo (−6.4; P<.001). Remission rates were greater for adjunctive aripiprazole than for adjunctive placebo (week 14, 36.8% vs 18.9%; P<.001). Completion rates with adjunctive aripiprazole and placebo were high (83% vs. 87%) and discontinuations due to adverse events were low (6.2% vs 1.7%).

Conclusion: For some patients with MDD who do not obtain adequate symptom relief with antidepressant monotherapy, adjunctive therapies can significantly improve depressive symptoms. As reported, adjunctive aripiprazole was associated with a two-fold higher remission rate than adjunctive placebo. This, and previous studies, have shown that discontinuations due to adverse events were low and completion rates were high, and has indicated that both antidepressant and aripiprazole in combination were relatively well-tolerated and safe. This is the third consecutive clinical trial, in the absence of a failed trial, to demonstrate that aripiprazole augmentation to antidepressants is an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment for patients with MDD who do not respond adequately to standard antidepressant monotherapy (ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT00105196).