Best Practices Treatment Guideline for Major Depression Special Report on New Depression Treatment Technology Based on 2010 APA Practice Guidelines
Best Practices Guideline for the Treatment of Patients with Major Depressive Disorder, 3rd Edition, APA (2010) and the NeuroStar TMS Therapy Indication for Use Current Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder 1 The traditional treatment approach for patients suffering from major depression may begin with psychotherapy, antidepressant medications, or a combination of the two. Typical first line antidepressant medications may include an agent from one of the following mechanistic classes: Selective Serotonin Reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) Dopamine Norepinephrine Reuptake Inhibitors (DNRI) Serotonin Norepinephrine Reuptake Inhibitors (SNRI) Many patients may receive a series of these medications, which can mean months of trial and error. Treatment attempts are deemed unsuccessful usually because the patient experiences inadequate symptom relief, because the medication adverse events are intolerable, or both. In many instances, these adverse events occur early in the course of treatment, before the patient has had an opportunity to take the antidepressant medication at an appropriate dose and for a sufficient length of time to establish efficacy. The chart below summarizes the typical adverse events reported in the product labels for many of these antidepressant medications. The list includes those adverse events that were reported in clinical trials in at least 5% of patients taking the active medication and at twice the rate of that adverse event in the placebo treated control group 2 : Weight Gain Nervousness Weakness Abnormal Ejaculation Constipation Anxiety Dry Mouth Impotence Diarrhea Increased Appetite Dizziness Sweating Nausea Decreased Appetite Fatigue Tremor Drowsiness Insomnia Systemic Drug Side Effects 2 Most common side effects per antidepressant medication labels (5% and 2x placebo) Decreased Sexual Interest Headache/ Migraine Treatment Discontinuation Side Effects 2
Once it is clear that a patient has not received adequate benefit from a first line antidepressant treatment given at an adequate dose and duration, the typical next step has been to: Switch to another non- MAOI antidepressant, Switch to an older generation (MAOI or TCA) antidepressant monotherapy, Pursue augmentation strategies by adding medications such as lithium carbonate, thyroid hormone, or Augment with a second generation antipsychotic medication taken in addition to the existing antidepressant monotherapy. In order to clarify whether any of these treatment approaches are preferred, and to more accurately estimate the likelihood of benefit from next step treatments typically used in clinical practice, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) funded the largest and most comprehensive study ever conducted to help understand how these different next step treatment options fare in real world practice settings. Called the STAR*D Study, or the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression study, this research involved over 40 clinical sites and over 4,000 patients treated in outpatient practice. Patients were enrolled in this study if they were in their first depression treatment episode, or had a recurrent course of illness and had responded to treatment in a prior episode. Once enrolled, a patient was then sequenced through up to four different levels of treatment, until they achieved remission or dropped out of the study. The overall goal of the STAR*D trial was to determine the likelihood of benefit for a patient over time as they gradually failed a sequence of standard treatment approaches with antidepressant or augmenting medications. Basically, it answered the question of how well standard antidepressant medication treatments work and how well they are tolerated in practice. 3 Key Findings From The STAR*D Trial The treatments offered at the various levels of STAR*D were agreed upon by expert consensus and were intended to reflect the most commonly used approaches in clinical practice. For example, at Level 1 of STAR*D, all patients were treated with citalopram at labeled doses for up to 12 weeks. The outcome of interest at each level was remission as measured by standard depression rating scales. If the patient did not remit, they were then offered the option of proceeding to the next treatment level. A total of four levels were examined. At each level after Level 1, the patient was offered the option of switching to a selection of medications from the same or a different mechanistic class used in the preceding level. Augmentation options were also offered at each of these levels. 3
STAR*D Treatment Levels 3 Level1 Level 2 Level 2A Level 3 Level 4 Treatment strategies and options in Levels 1 to 4, BUP-SR = buspropion; CIT = citalopram; CT = cognitive therapy; Li = lithium; MIRT = mirtazapine; NTP = nortriptyline; SERT = sertraline; T3 = triiodothyronine; TCP = tranylcypromine; VEN-XR = venlafaxine extended release. The design of STAR*D was intended to mimic the approaches commonly used in clinical practice when facing treatment failures. The earliest levels used the most recently marketed antidepressant classes that are known to usually have a better adverse event profile. Older agents were offered at the later levels, for example, a switch to a tricyclic antidepressant did not occur until Level 3 and a monoamine oxidase inhibitor was first offered at the final Level 4. Clearly, these more advanced treatment strategies offered in the later levels of STAR*D also have the potential to compound the likelihood of adverse events and therefore to become an impediment to treatment adherence. Not surprisingly, one of the most striking observations from the STAR*D study, was that the likelihood of a patient discontinuing treatment increased steadily and predictably as each later treatment Level was attempted. The figure below shows the discontinuation rate due to adverse events across the STAR*D study for the antidepressant switch option offered at each Level. 4,5 4
Likelihood of discontinuing treatment increases with each new medication attempt 4,5 Discontinuation due to side effects (%) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 N=2876 8.6% N=727 23.1% N=221 35.2% N=58 41.4% First Line One Prior Two Prior Three Prior Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Effect Failure Failures Failures The percentage of patients who discontinued treatment nearly tripled between the first and second treatment attempts. A proper treatment attempt consists of taking the medication at the recommended therapeutic dose for an adequate duration (at least 4 weeks). Arguably the most important observation from STAR*D is that the benefit from existing treatment options at each Level is generally modest. In addition, the likelihood of achieving remission through antidepressants or augmenting agents steadily declines with each successive treatment attempt. STAR*D Study demonstrates current treatment has limited effectiveness % Achieving remission (HAMD 17) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Likelihood of achieving remission is limited and declines with each successive treatment attempt 27.5% 21.2% 16.2% 6.9% First Line One Prior Two Prior Three Prior Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Effect 4 Failure 6 Failures 5 Failures 7 The percent of patients experiencing remission dropped from 27.5% from the first line treatment attempt at Level 1, to 6.9% at Level 4, after patients had failed to benefit from three prior adequate treatment attempts. It is important to note that the vast majority of currently marketed antidepressant treatments were studied only in patients similar to those at Level 1 of STAR*D, namely patients who are treatment naïve. Clearly, the majority of the clinical problem in the treatment of major depression occurs at the later Levels, namely in those patients who fail to benefit from initial treatment, which is about 60% of the patients in Level 1. Unfortunately, very few antidepressant treatments have been specifically studied, been proven to work, or been approved by the FDA, in these more difficult to treat patients. Of the few medications that have been tested, they are augmenting agents added to concurrent antidepressant medication and are known to further contribute to the systemic side effects shown above. The key findings from the STAR*D study demonstrate a clear need for a new proven treatment option that can alleviate the symptoms of depression in patients who have not benefitted from first-line treatment, without the burden of systemic side effects. 5
A Non-Drug Depression Treatment Is Now Available In 2010, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) released the 3rd Edition of Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Patients with Major Depressive Disorder. 1 Among the most notable changes in this revision was that, for the first time, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is included in these guidelines for patients who have failed to benefit from initial antidepressant medication. The FDA clearance of the NeuroStar TMS Therapy system gives patients at this stage in their depression treatment a new proven treatment option that is not burdened with systemic side effects. The NeuroStar TMS Therapy system is the only TMS device that has been cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of Major Depressive Disorder in adult patients who have not received satisfactory improvement from one prior antidepressant medication at or above the minimal effective dose and duration in the current episode. The median number of overall treatment attempts (adequate and inadequate dose and duration) was 4 (range; 1-23 treatment attempts). 4-6 Weeks First Line Treatment Attempts NEXT TRIAL TMS Non-Invasive Non-Systemic Single Antidepressant Medication Maintenance NEXT TRIAL Antidepressant Switch Non MAOI Class MAOIs / TCAs NEXT TRIAL Augmentation Strategies NEXT TRIAL Atypical Antipsychotic Augmentation On-going Multiple Antidepressant Medication Maintenance 2 Months 4 Months 6 Months+ NeuroStar TMS Therapy is Proven Safe 8 NeuroStar TMS Therapy is a safe and well tolerated treatment option. During clinical trials, the most common device-related side effect reported was pain or discomfort at or near the site of stimulation. Only 5% of patients discontinued due to adverse events in clinical trials. TMS Side Effects Pain or Discomfort at or near the Treatment Site* No systemic side effects were reported in the clinical trials associated with TMS Therapy. *Includes the following MedDRA adverse event preferred terms: eye pain, toothache, application site discomfort, application site pain, facial pain, muscle twitching, pain of skin. 6
NeuroStar TMS Therapy is Proven Effective 9 NeuroStar TMS Therapy is a proven depression treatment. In a large, multi-site, randomized controlled clinical trial, patients treated with active NeuroStar TMS Therapy experienced an average reduction in their depression symptom score of 22.1% compared to a 9% reduction in patients receiving inactive treatment. In an open-label study, one out of two patients treated with NeuroStar TMS Therapy experienced significant clinical improvement in their depression symptoms. One out of three patients experienced complete symptom relief or remission of symptoms. The patients enrolled in these studies had not benefitted from prior antidepressant medication therapy. An Established Depression Treatment Option In 2010, The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) funded an independent multicenter research study of TMS Therapy using the NeuroStar TMS Therapy system. This study, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry, provided an independent verification of the efficacy of NeuroStar TMS Therapy, and a rigorous validation of prior TMS clinical research which confirmed the value of TMS Therapy as an effective and safe treatment for adult patients with major depression who have not benefitted from prior antidepressant medication. 10 Release of CPT Category I Codes 11 January 1, 2011 marked the release of two new Category I CPT Codes approved for billing TMS Therapy medical services: 90867 Code for TMS Therapy Planning Session 90868 Code for TMS Therapy Treatment Session The availability of CPT I codes for a new treatment modality indicates TMS Therapy is an accepted standard of care for patients suffering from depression. The release of these codes marks the first new psychiatric CPT I codes to be introduced since 1966. Conclusion Psychiatrists across the United States are adopting NeuroStar TMS Therapy, a safe and proven non-drug depression treatment, by adding it as an outpatient treatment option for their patients. Hear what some of these TMS Therapy providers are saying about Neurostar by visiting its YouTube Channel www.youtube.com/neurostartmstherapy. Neuronetics, maker of the NeuroStar system, provides a wide range of services and support, including clinical product training and patient education tools, to allow psychiatrists to successfully integrate NeuroStar TMS Therapy into their practices and to effectively provide this innovative treatment option to their patients suffering with depression. To learn more about NeuroStar TMS Therapy, please visit www.neurostar.com or call 1-877-600-7555 to speak with a representative. 7
References: 1) American Psychiatric Association (2010) (eds: Gelenberg, AJ, Freeman, MP, Markowitz, JC, Rosenbaum, JF, Thase, ME, Trivedi, MH, Van Rhoads, RS). Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Patients with Major Depressive Disorder, 3rd Edition. 2) Neuronetics, Data on File, 2011. 3) Warden, D., et al. (2007). The STAR*D Project Results! A Comprehensive Review of Findings. Current Psychiatry Reports 9:449-459. 4) Trivedi, M. H., A. J. Rush, et al. (2006). Evaluation of Outcomes with Citalopram for Depression Using Measurement-Based Care in STAR*D Implications for Clinical Practice. Am J Psychiatry 163(1): 28-40 5) Fava, M.,et. al. (2006). A Comparison of Mirtazapine and Nortriptyline Following Two Consecutive Failed Medication Treatments for Depressed Outpatients: A Star*D Report. Am J Psychiatry 163(7): 1161-1172 6) Rush AJ, et. al.: Acute and longer-term outcomes in depressed outpatients requiring one or several treatment steps: a STAR*D report. Am J Psychiatry 2006; 163:1905 1917 3. 7) McGrath, P. J., et al. (2006). Tranylcypromine Versus Venlafaxine Plus Mirtazapine Following Three Failed Antidepressant Medication Trials for Depression: A STAR*D Report. Am J Psychiatry 163(9): 1531-1541 8) Janicak P, et al. Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) in the Treatment of Major Depression: A Comprehensive Summary of Safety Experience from Acute Exposure, Extended Exposure and During Reintroduction Treatment. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, February 2008. 9) Demitrack MA, Thase ME. Clinical significance of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in the treatment of pharmacoresistant depression: synthesis of recent data. Psychopharm Bull. 2009, 42(2): 5-38. 10) George, M. S., S. H. Lisanby, et al. (2010). Daily Left Prefrontal Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Therapy for Major Depressive Disorder A Sham-Controlled Randomized Trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 67(5): 507-516. 11) Current Procedural Terminology 2011, American Medical Association. CPT is a registered trademark of the American Medical Association www.neurostar.com 2011 Neuronetics, Inc., Malvern, PA All rights reserved. 52-60132-000 Rev A