Highlights of the 26th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress

By Larry Klassen, MD; Margaret Oakander, MD; Dijana Oliver, MD; Toba Oluboka, MD and Roberto Tosti, MD on January 20, 2014
Rate

In October 2013, the annual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) was held in Barcelona, Spain. This report contains highlights from a selection of sessions that took place during the five-day event. The content is divided into two major themes: brain anatomy/physiology and implications for depression treatment; and the challenging clinical issues faced by physicians and their patients.


PART 1: Implications of Brain Anatomy and Physiology on Depression Treatment

Brain structure and function have important implications for depression and its treatment. Several sessions throughout the five-day congress helped to bridge this gap between basic research and clinical practice. Two of these are reviewed below.

 

Altered Brain Structures In Depression: Implications For Treatment

Dr. Julio Bobes (Spain) began this session with an introductory presentation during which he described depression as a complex disorder with many different subtypes based on genetic factors (endo­phenotypes). He showed how these different types of depression are observed in biological markers via neuro-imaging (e.g., the amygdala and prediction response), emotional processing (e.g., facial expression recognition), and genetics. More specifically, Dr. Bobes outlined that depression is associated with hyperactivity in several important areas of the brain. An understanding of these different types of depression and their unique underlying processes can help in setting specific targets for depression treatment.

Dr. Catherine Harmer (U.K.) went on to focus on the impact of depression on emotional processing. She showed that negative affective biases are a key psychological factor in maintaining depression, and described how facial expression recognition can be used to measure emotional bias. Depression, she explained, is associated with increased identification of negative facial expressions and reduced perception of happy facial cues. Of note, she presented data showing that two different antidepressants (citalopram and reboxetine) reduced recognition of negative facial expressions in healthy volunteers and depressed patients, as early as seven days after beginning administration.1 Dr. Harmer also showed how the brain’s response (i.e., in the amygdala) to negative cues is decreased by antidepressants with different mechanisms of action (for example following seven days of treatment with escitalopram). Ultimately, evidence like this suggests that antidepressants affect these neural processes very early in treatment (Figure 1), although the precise mechanisms and comparative effects are not fully known. Regardless, Dr. Harmer went on to show evidence that early emotional processing change (brought about by antidepressant therapy) predicts response vs. non-response, and that early change in amygdala reactivity predicts clinical improvement (for example at week 6 with escitalopram).2 She concluded by pointing out that early changes in emotional processing may help explain the mechanisms of conventional and novel antidepressant drug treatments, and that these effects can also serve as markers of efficacy. Finally, Dr. Harmer asserted that these findings provide a framework in which to explore novel hypotheses in the treatment of depression.


 

Dr. Philippe Fossati (France) provided a detailed review of the brain effects of antidepressants, describing the “circuit model” of major depressive disorder (MDD).3 He also explained that the variability of brain patterns make these effects of antidepressants difficult to study. These variables, he showed, include clinical/biological heterogeneity (unipolarity vs. bipolarity; the presence or absence of psychiatric comorbidities), actual severity (e.g., MADRS or HAM-D scores; inpatient vs. outpatient populations; mean duration of actual depressive episode), longitudinal severity (first vs. multiple depressive episodes), and functional lesions and adaptive mechanisms. He showed results from a study of the brain effects of agomelatine vs. placebo during a self-referential task in MDD patients (vs. healthy controls),4 and concluded that this agent shows early effects on brain function, targeting emotional processing that may be related to social-functioning recovery.

Finally, Dr. Goran Hajak (Germany) reviewed the clinical implications of restored emotions and improved functioning (mainly through the use of agomelatine). Of interest, he presented a schematic showing that depressed patients, unlike healthy controls, are unable to separate emotional processing from other brain activities such as cognitive and sensorimotor processing.5 This, he proposed, could help explain how the unique actions of agomelatine contribute to improvement across a range of domains and symptoms in depression.

 

Can Antidepressants Have An Effect On Cognitive Dysfunction?

Keeping with the theme of linking brain anatomy and physiology with depression and its treatment, this session began with Dr. Francesc Artigas (Spain) reviewing the brain circuits and targets for cognitive dysfunction in major depression. He described major depression as a disorder of synaptic plasticity6 and of the cortico-limbic circuits. The range of symptoms seen in this disorder include anhedonia, cognitive deficits, depressed mood, somatic changes, fear/anxiety and sleep problems (Table 1). Dr. Artigas showed how the prefrontal cortex (PFC) is the “connector” of the various relevant brain structure functions,7-9 and then provided a detailed review of catecholamines and cognitive function (including the roles of a2-adrenergic receptors and of D1 receptors, and the less-understood roles of several serotonin receptors).10,11 In this context, he showed the in vitro receptor activity and reuptake inhibition of a multi-modal antidepressant currently in development,12,13 and compared the effect of this agent on pyramidal cell firing to that of escitalopram. As he showed, the multi-modal antidepressant (but not escitalopram) dose-dependently increases the discharge rate of specific pyramidal neurons projecting to midbrain, by a mechanism involving 5-HT3 receptors. 


Next, Dr. Trevor Robbins (U.K.) briefly reviewed the components of cognition (divided into categories of input, representation, and executive) and the domains of disturbed cognitive function in schizophrenia (speed of processing; attention/vigilance; working memory; verbal learning and memory; visual learning and memory; reasoning and problem-solving; social cognition; positive symptoms).14 He then desribed a series of tests of cognition motivation that can be translated across species (rodents, non-human primates and humans). This translatability, he showed, is cause for “cautious optimism about the use of animal cognition models for [human] drug discovery” relevant to depression and other neuropsychiatric disorders.

Dr. Michael Thase (U.S.) presented the session’s third and final talk, focusing on reviewing the cognitive effects of anti­depressants in clinical studies. Dr. Thase began by reviewing the evolution of treatment goals in depression: from a goal of “response” (in which many symptoms remain) in the 1970s, to one of “remission” (in which some symptoms may persist) in the 1990s, and finally to “full functional recovery” (in which symptoms are essentially absent) in the current decade (Table 2).15 He also showed how the common patient descriptors of cognitive symptoms can be mapped to the cognitive domains of attention, memory, psychomotor speed and executive function—and how patients’ feelings of confusion, inadequacy and being overwhelmed overlap onto each of these domains (Figure 2). He reviewed the high prevalence of cognitive dysfunction in depression16 (and as a residual symptom of depression17), and demonstrated that only a small handful of studies have been conducted to examine the effects of current antidepressants on cognitive function. Within this relatively sparse literature, the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) and the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) have been used to evaluate cognitive performance in MDD.18-20



Dr. Thase briefly reviewed the definition of “multi-modal,” describing multi-modal agents as those with multiple pharmacologic targets and multiple modes of action (e.g., receptor activity and reuptake inhibition; Figure 3)21,22 and discussing reasons for which multi-modal compounds may “unite comple­mentary mechanisms of pro-cognitive action” to target cognitive function in depression treatment.23 He concluded by pointing out that ongoing studies are further investigating the effects of multi-modal compounds on the cognitive symptoms of depression. 


PART 2: Key Issues in Patient Management

In addition to sessions focused on basic research like those reviewed above, many other sessions during the ECNP congress were aimed at helping clinicians with their daily patient management. Three of these are reviewed below.

 

Recovery in Depression: Defining The Treatment Goal And How To Achieve It

This debate session aimed to answer two key questions faced by clinicians treating depression: 1) what should be the treatment goal (or, what patients want and what doctors think they need); and 2) should treatment be with a single agent or is treatment with two agents better?

Dr. Charles Nemeroff (U.S.), serving as the session’s chair, provided a brief introduction during which he described the five “Rs” of depression treatment outcome along with their commonly accepted definitions (Table 3).25,26 He also pointed out that, in defining remission and treatment success, one could consider the field of oncology in which 30% remission would surely not be an acceptable goal. In this light, he asserted, the treatment of patients with psychiatric conditions should also aim for higher rates of success.

 

Dr. Daniel Meron (U.K.) began Part 1 of the debate—focused on treatment goals in depression—by pointing out that the definition of remission is not official or consistent between studies, and suggesting that “functional recovery” should instead be the ideal outcome. He also reviewed data showing that many depressed outpatients (45% in one study he showed) who are in remission according to HAM-D do not consider themselves to be in remission.27,28 Self-described remitters, he showed, report lower levels of depression/anxiety, better quality of life, less functional impairment due to depression, and better coping ability. Meanwhile, a survey of general practitioners and psychiatrists in Belgium29 showed that these two groups of physicians agreed on the criteria for defining cure from depression: they found the SDS and PHQ-9 scales to have the most important content, and focused on interest, mood and suicidal thoughts (and social and occupational functioning included only in the SDS). Finally, Dr. Meron argued for the validity of the CGI scales, showing that CGI-I-defined response corresponded to a 39% reduction in MADRS scores while CGI-S-defined remission corresponded to a MADRS score of 11 (which is defined as remission).30 He concluded that each of the scales remains useful, including the MADRS and HAM-D because of their better inter-rater reliability and allowing for differentiated assessments via subscales.  

Dr. Roger McIntyre (Canada) countered, showing succinctly that functioning is very important in the patient perspective on depression outcomes, and that patient-reported outcomes predict relapse. He presented the Individual Burden of Illness index for Depression (IBI-D), and showed that this multi­-dimensional measure (involving measures of functioning impairment, quality-of-life impairment, and symptom severity) is a more robust predictor of relapse than a unidimensional measure such as the QIDS-SR.31 He also showed that, according to accumulated evidence, symptom remission (“feeling better” with improved symptom scores) does not always translate into functional improvement (“doing better” with improved function scores).32-36 Of particular note, Dr. McIntyre demonstrated the importance of achieving success with the first depression treatment, presenting data that responders to first-step treatment were more likely than non-responders to experience significant improvements in work productivity (while patients who achieved symptom remission only in second-step treatment continued to have impairment at work) (Figure 4).37


Part 2 of the debate led off from this point, with Dr. Meron showing data in favor of combination antidepressant therapy. For example, he showed evidence that initiation of MDD therapy with mirtazapine combined with venlafaxine, bupropion or fluoxetine was more effective than initiation with fluoxetine alone in terms of improving HAM-D score,38 concluding that combination treatments are as well tolerated and more clinically effective, and that use of such combinations from initiation could double the likelihood of remission compared to using a single agent.

Dr. McIntyre challenged this by showing the results of another study, in which three treatment groups (escitalopram monotherapy; escitalopram plus bupropion; venlafaxine plus mirtazapine) did not differ from each other in terms of response or remission in depressed patients.39 He then presented data in favor of a dose-optimization strategy. Focusing on evidence with escitalopram, he showed that dose increase leads to better persistence than switching or adding on agents,40 and that initiation with escitalopram 20 mg was not different from initial combination therapy with bupropion plus escitalopram or with venlafaxine plus mirtazapine in terms of response or remission rates. Furthermore, he presented data from a U.S. claims database showing that an escitalopram dose increase from 10 mg to 20 mg is associated with fewer treament strategy interruptions than switching or adding on therapy, no higher cost than switching therapy, and lower costs than adding on treatment.41


Overlapping Depression and Anxiety: A Common Challenge For Clinicians And Their Patients

The treatment of patients with depressive disorder and overlapping anxiety disorder/symptoms is another common challenge for clinicians. Setting the stage for addressing this challenge, this session’s co-chair, Dr. David Kupfer (U.S.), summarized the revisions in DSM-5 related to mood and anxiety disorders.42 Elimination of the bereavement exclusion was key among these changes: Dr. Kupfer noted that the exclusion had implied that bereavement typically lasts only two months, when the duration is in fact commonly one to two years. The change to eliminate bereavement as an exclusion criteria will allow clinicians to diagnose depression in bereaved patients when clinically indicated, and therefore facilitate comprehensive treatment. Dr. Kupfer also discussed the addition of the Depression with Anxious Distress diagnosis in order to capture those patients who have significant anxiety associated with their depression but who do not qualify for an anxiety disorder diagnosis. Overall, with its new chapter structure, changes in criteria, new importance of specifiers for more precise assessment, and implications for neuroscience and treatment, Dr. Kupfer asserted that DSM-5 is a “living document” that connects with the biopsychosocial perspective and will allow for more rapid changes as our knowledge base evolves. He also acknowledged that DSM-5 allows for more alignment with the upcoming ICD-11.

Dr. Stephen Stahl (U.S.) next discussed the biologic and pharmacologic bases for treatment within the anxiety-depression continuum. He began by reviewing the overlapping brain circuitry linked to symptoms of major depression and anxiety disorders, pointing out that the brain has a limited number of “highways” by which it can manifest symptoms (e.g., poor concentration in MDD and in anxiety; Figure 5).43 Dr. Stahl proceeded to “deconstruct” the syndrome of anxiety into its symptoms to illustrate the brain regions and circuits that regulate these symptoms. He also reviewed the role of genetics in the development/emergence of anxiety and depression, describing the differences between “resilient” and “compromised” genotypes, and the effects of various chronic or life stressors on the brain circuits in patients with these genotypes.43 He concluded that neuropharmacologic targets for symptoms of depression and anxiety also overlap, which may explain why some antidepressants can also treat symptoms of anxiety.43


Dr. Koen Demyttenaere (Belgium) concluded this discussion of depression treatment, focusing his talk on examining the “contexts” in which this treatment is understood. He began by discussing some problems with randomized controlled trials, pointing out that clinicians rely heavily on them although they represent only 10-20% of patients, and that placebo response rates have been increasing over time and are correlated with greater numbers of visits to the research clinic.44 He also argued that a publication bias (e.g., 61% of negative studies are not  published), reporting bias (e.g., 31% of negative studies are published with a positive “spin”) and an “embracing” bias (e.g., “noisy” vs. “silent” papers) contribute to a problem with the “context” of the available literature.45 Finally, another “contextual” issue which Dr. Demyttenaere addressed is that of what is considered important in treatment, by physicians vs. by patients. In data he showed,46 according to physicians the top priorities include three positive and seven negative affect items; while for patients the top priorities include seven positive and three negative affect items (Table 4). For example, the extent to which life is meaningful was the top issue identified by patients but was at the bottom of the physicians’ list. Moreover, Dr. Demyttenaere pointed out that loss of interest/pleasure is recognized as a core symptom of depression but is not represented on any clinical scales.


Negative Symptoms in Schizophrenia: Growing Interest But Still An Unmet Need

This session turned the focus to schizophrenia, and aimed to discuss the important challenge of negative symptoms in this patient group.

Following his introductory remarks in which he outlined the growing interest in negative symptoms in schizophrenia (20% of schizophrenia publications by mid-2012 dealt with negative symptoms, compared to only 5% in 1980), session chair Dr. Josep Maria Haro (Spain) presented a talk prepared by Dr. David Taylor (U.K.) who was unable to attend the congress. As part of this talk, Dr. Haro reviewed the important impact of negative symptoms, pointing out that they frequently cause major burden (for patients, families, etc.)47 even when positive symptoms are controlled, and outlining that the treatment of negative symptoms is an obvious unmet need. He reviewed data showing that some pharmacologic agents have potential in this area, but that current treatments are generally viewed as inadequate by clinicians.

Next, Dr. Pierre-Michel Llorca (France) continued to review the impact of negative symptoms with a focus on patient functioning. He outlined that symptomatic remission is not always associated with sufficient improvement in functioning in all domains;48 that negative symptoms are significantly better predictors of global functioning than all other clinical dimensions;49 that negative symptom severity is the most important factor for prediction of global psychosocial functioning (followed by attention);50 and that negative symptoms were one of the main predictors of the level of burden and distress in a survey of caregivers and patients.51

Dr. Xavier Amador (U.S.) then reviewed the ways in which success has been defined when treating negative symptoms in schizophrenia (the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms, or SANS), and challenged these conventional clinical expectations and goals by suggesting that the focus should be on loss of motivation (which affects functioning) rather than on the “squeaky wheel” negative symptom of loss of affect. He also reminded the audience of the importance of considering anosognosia in assessing motivation.

Finally, Dr. Philip Tibbo (Canada) provided an overview of (potential) future therapies for the negative symptoms of schizophrenia, and examined the targets and mechanisms of action of these different treatments. He pointed out that efficacy against negative symptoms is not a defining characteristic of atypical antipsychotics,52 and drew attention to an advance in the primarily “dopamine hypothesis” to include the role of GABA (and in particular glutamate) when addressing neurotransmitter dysfunction in schizophrenia.53-55 Finally, Dr. Tibbo reviewed preliminary clinical data with some of the compounds in development aimed at negative symptoms in schizophrenia. While research into many such compounds has been cancelled for various reasons, Dr. Tibbo listed a handful that are still in development (in phase II or III trials).

 

Development of this report was sponsored through an educational grant from Lundbeck Canada Inc. The authors had complete editorial independence in the development of this article and are responsible for its accuracy. The sponsor exerted no influence on the selection of the content or material published. Before prescribing any medication mentioned, please consult the appropriate product monograph.

 

References:
1. Harmer CJ, Shelley NC, Cowen PJ, et al. Increased positive versus negative affective perception and memory in healthy volunteers following selective serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibition. Am J Psychiatry 2004; 161(7):1256-63.
2. Tranter R, Bell D, Gutting P, et al. The effect of serotonergic and noradrenergic antidepressants on face emotion processing in depressed patients. J Affect Disord 2009; 118(1-3):87-93.
3. Mayberg HS. Targeted electrode-based modulation of neural circuits for depression. J Clin Invest 2009; 119(4):717-25.
4. Fossati P, Jabourian M, Laredo J, et al. Early effects of agomelatine on self-referential processing in acute depressed patients: an fMRI study. Eur Psychiatry 2013; 28(Suppl 1):1501.
5. Epstein J, Perez DL, Ervin K, et al. Failure to segregate emotional processing from cognitive and sensorimotor processing in major depression. Psychiatry Res 2011; 193(3):144-50. 
6. Nestler EJ, Barrot M, DiLeone RJ, et al. Neurobiology of depression. Neuron 2002; 34(1):13-25.
7. Krawczyk DC. Contributions of the prefrontal cortex to the neural basis of human decision making. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2002; 26(6):631-4.
8. Fuster JM. The prefrontal cortex--an update: time is of the essence. Neuron 2001; 30(2):319-33.
9. Groenewegen HJ, Uylings HB. The prefrontal cortex and the integration of sensory, limbic and autonomic information. Prog Brain Res 2000; 126:3-28.
10. Amargos-Bosch M, Bortolozzi A, Puig MV, et al. Co-expression and in vivo interaction of serotonin1A and serotonin2A receptors in pyramidal neurons of prefrontal cortex. Cereb Cortex 2004; 14(3):281-99.
11. Puig MV, Santana N, Celada P, et al. In vivo excitation of GABA interneurons in the medial prefrontal cortex through 5-HT3 receptors. Cereb Cortex 2004; 14(12):1365-75.
12. Bang-Anderson B, Ruhland T, Jorgensen M, et al. Discovery of 1-[2-(2,4-dimethylphenylsulfanyl)phenyl]piperazine (Lu AA21004): a novel multimodal compound for the treatment of major depressive disorder. J Med Chem 2011; 54(9):3206-21.
13. Mork A, Pehrson A, Brennum LT, et al. Pharmacological effects of Lu AA21004: a novel multimodal compound for the treatment of major depressive disorder. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2012; 340(3):666-75.
14. Hagan JJ, Jones DN. Predicting drug efficacy for cognitive deficits in schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull 2005; 31(4):830-53.
15. Zimmerman M, Martinez JA, Attiullah N, et al. Why do some depressed outpatients who are in remission according to the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale not consider themselves to be in remission? J Clin Psychiatry 2012; 73(6):790-5.
16. Pettit JW, Lewinsohn PM, Joiner TE Jr. Propagation of major depressive disorder: relationship between first episode symptoms and recurrence. Psychiatry Res 2006; 141(3):271-8.
17. Conradi HJ, Ormel J, de Jonge P. Presence of individual (residual) symptoms during depressive episodes and periods of remission: a 3-year prospective study. Psychol Med 2011; 41(6):1165-74.
18. Wechsler D. Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, 3rd Edition, 1997.
19. Rey A. L’examen Clinique en Psychologie. Presses Universitaires de France, 1964.
20. Lezak MD. Neuropsychlogical Assessment, 2nd Edition. Oxford University Press, 1983.
21. Nutt DJ. Beyond psychoanaleptics - can we improve antidepressant drug nomenclature? J Psychopharmacol 2009; 23(4):343-5.
22. Westrich L, et al. Int J Psychiatry Clin Pract 2012; 16(Suppl 1):47, abstract P71.
23. Millan MJ, Agid Y, Brune M, et al. Cognitive dysfunction in psychiatric disorders: characteristics, causes and the quest for improved therapy. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2012; 11(2):141-68.
24. Katona C, Hansen T, Olsen CK. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, duloxetine-referenced, fixed-dose study comparing the efficacy and safety of Lu AA21004 in elderly patients with major depressive disorder. In Clin Psychopharmacol 2012; 27(4):215-23.
25. Depression Guideline Panel. Depression in Primary Care. Volume 1. AHCPR publication 93-0550, 1993.
26. Frank E, Prien RF, Jarrett RB, et al. Conceptualization and rationale for consensus definitions of terms in major depressive disorder. Remission, recovery, relapse, and recurrence. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1991; 48(9):851-5.
27. Zimmerman M, Martinez JA, Attiullah N, et al. Why do some depressed outpatients who are in remission according to the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale not consider themselves to be in remission? J Clin Psychiatry 2012; 73(6):790-5.
28. Stotland NL. Recovery from depression. Psychiatr Clin North Am 2012; 35(1):37-49.
29. Demyttenaere K, Ansseau M, Constant E, et al. Do general practitioners and psychiatrists agree about defining cure from depression? The DEsCRIBE™ survey. BMC Psychiatry 2011; 11:169.
30. Bandelow B, Baldwin DS, Dolberg OT, et al. What is the threshold for symptomatic response and remission for major depressive disorder, panic disorder, social anxiety disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder? J Clin Psychiatry 2006; 67(9):1428-34.
31. Ishak WW, Greenberg JM, Cohen RM. Predicting relapse in major depressive disorder using patient-reported outcomes of depressive symptom severity, functioning, and quality of life in the individual burden of illness index for depression (IBI-D). J Affect Disord 2013; 151(1):59-65.
32. Boyer P, Danion JM, Bisserbe JC, et al. Clinical and economic comparison of sertraline and fluoxetine in the treatment of depression. A 6-month double-blind study in a primary-care setting in France. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13(1 Pt 2):157-69.
33. Miller IW, Keitner GI, Schatzberg AF, et al. The treatment of chronic depression, part 3: psychosocial functioning before and after treatment with sertraline or imipramine. J Clin Psychiatry 1998; 59(11):608-19.
34. Keller MB, Gelenberg AJ, Hirschfeld RM, et al. The treatment of chronic depression, part 2: a double-blind, randomized trial of sertraline and imipramine. J Clin Psychiatry 1998; 59(11):598-607.
35. Wade A, Gembert K, Florea I. A comparative study of the efficacy of acute and continuation treatment with escitalopram versus duloxetine in patients with major depressive disorder. Curr Med Res Opin 2007; 23(7):1604-14.
36. Martinez JM, Katon W, Greist JH, et al. A pragmatic 12-week, randomized trial of duloxetine versus generic selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors in the treatment of adult outpatients in a moderate-to-severe depressive episode. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 2012; 27(1):17-26.
37. Trivedi MH, Morris DW, Wisniewski SR, et al. Increase in work productivity of depressed individuals with improvement in depressive symptom severity. Am J Psychiatry 2013; 170(6):633-41.
38. Blier P, Ward HE, Tremblay P, et al. Combination of antidepressant medications from treatment initiation for major depressive disorder: a double-blind randomized study. Am J Psychiatry 2010; 167(3):281-8.
39. Rush AJ, Trivedi MH, Stewart JW, et al. Combining medications to enhance depression outcomes (CO-MED): acute and long-term outcomes of a single-blind randomized study. Am J Psychiatry 2011; 168(7):689-701.
40. Sanglier T, et al. Poster presented at ISPOR 2008, Athens.
41. Sanglier T, Milea D, Saragoussi D, et al. Increasing escitalopram dose is associated with fewer discontinuations than switch or combination approaches in patients initially on escitalopram 10 mg. Eur Psychiatry 2012; 27(4):250-7.
42. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Fifth Edition. American Psychiatric Association, 2013.
43. Stahl SM. Stahl’s Essential Psychopharmacology. Fourth Edition. Cambridge University Press, New York, 2013.
44. Posternak MA, Zimmerman M. Therapeutic effect of follow-up assessments on antidepressant and placebo response rates in antidepressant efficacy trials: meta-analysis. Br J Psychiatry 2007; 190:287-92.
45. Turner EH. Publication bias, with a focus on psychiatry: causes and solutions. CNS Drugs 2013; 457-68.
46. Demyttenaere K, Ansseau M, Constant E, et al. Manuscript in preparation.
47. Bobes J, Arango C, Garcia-Garcia M, et al. Prevalence of negative symptoms in outpatients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders treated with antipsychotics in routine clinical practice: findings from the CLAMORS study. J Clin Psychiatry 2010; 71(3):280-6.
48. Karow A, Moritz S, Lambert M, et al. Remitted but still impaired? Symptomatic versus functional remission in patients with schizophrenia. Eur Psychiatry 2012; 27(6):401-5.
49. Rabinowitz J, Levine SZ, Garibaldi G, et al. Negative symptoms have greater impact on functioning than positive symptoms in schizophrenia: analysis of CATIE data. Schizophr Res 2012; 137(1-3):147-50.
50. Milev P, Ho BC, Arndt S, et al. Predictive values of neurocognition and negative symptoms on functional outcome in schizophrenia: a longitudinal first-episode study with 7-year follow-up. Am J Psychiatry 2005; 162(3):495-506.
51. Dyck DG, Short R, Vitaliano PP. Predictors of burden and infectious illness in schizophrenia caregivers. Psychosom Med 1999; 61(4):411-9.
52. Leucht S, Corves C, Arbter D, et al. econd-generation versus first-generation antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia: a meta-analysis. Lancet 2009; 373(9657):31-41.
53. Kantrowitz JT, Javitt DC. N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor dysfunction or dysregulation: the final common pathway on the road to schizophrenia? Brain Res Bull 2010; 83(3-4):108-21.
54. Theberge J, Bartha R, Drost DJ, et al. Glutamate and glutamine measured with 4.0 T proton MRS in never-treated patients with schizophrenia and healthy volunteers. Am J Psychiatry 2002; 159(11):1944-6.
55. Tibbo P, Hanstock C, Valiakalayil A, et al. 3-T proton MRS investigation of glutamate and glutamine in adolescents at high genetic risk for schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry 2004; 161(6):1116-8.
56. Theberge J, Al-Semaan Y, Williamson PC, et al. Glutamate and glutamine in the anterior cingulate and thalamus of medicated patients with chronic schizophrenia and healthy comparison subjects measured with 4.0-T proton MRS. Am J Psychiatry 2003; 160(12):2231-3.
57. Stone JM, Day F, Tsagaraki H, et al. Glutamate dysfunction in people with prodromal symptoms of psychosis: relationship to gray matter volume. Biol Psychiatry 2009; 66(6):533-9.

By Larry Klassen, MD; Margaret Oakander, MD; Dijana Oliver, MD; Toba Oluboka, MD and Roberto Tosti, MD| January 20, 2014
Categories:  Feature Article
                                                                                                                                                                       
Copyright © Agility Inc. 2017