Antidepressant Response in the Treatment of Depressive Symptoms and Frailty Characteristics in Older Adults

January 12, 2021 updated by: Patrick J. Brown, New York State Psychiatric Institute
The goal of this open-administration treatment study of citalopram (or duloxetine) is to evaluate the effect of antidepressant medication on treating the syndrome of "frailty" in older adults with depressive symptoms. Patients with significant depressive symptoms (defined as CES-D (Center for Epidemiological Studies - Depression scale) > 10) and 1 or more symptoms of the frailty syndrome (exhaustion, decreased energy, weight loss, decreased grip strength, and slow/unsteady gait) will be evaluated and treated with citalopram (or duloxetine) for 8 weeks to test whether antidepressant medication improves both the syndrome of frailty and depressive symptoms. Patients evaluated at the Adult and Late Life Depression clinic and eligible to participate in the study will be treated with an antidepressant medication and assessed on the primary outcome variables (characteristics of frailty, depressive symptoms) as well as on secondary variables which include cognition (global cognition, episodic memory, executive function), and function (physical mobility, instrumental activities of daily living, and social functioning) prior to treatment initiation and following 8-weeks of treatment. The hypotheses for this protocol predict that we will discover a significant improvement on both frailty characteristics and depressive symptoms in this clinical population when treated with antidepressant medication (citalopram or duloxetine).

Study Overview

Status

Status

Indicates the current recruitment status or the expanded access status.
Completed

Conditions

Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied. On ClinicalTrials.gov, conditions may also include other health-related issues, such as lifespan, quality of life, and health risks.

Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.

Detailed Description

Frailty, "a syndrome of decreased resiliency and reserves", is defined by five characteristics: 1)"shrinking" (definition: unintentional weight loss of > 10 lbs in prior year, or > 5% loss of body weight in prior year at follow-up), 2) weakness (definition: grip strength in lowest 20% at baseline, adjusted for gender and BMI), 3) poor endurance/energy (definition: self-report of exhaustion on 2 items on the CES-D), 4) slowness (definition: slowest 20% on timed 4 meter or 15 foot walk, adjusted for gender and standing height), and 5) low physical activity (definition: weighted score of kilocalories expended per week as calculated from the Minnesota Leisure Time Activity questionnaire). Frailty is associated with poor prognosis including hospitalization, falls, worsening disability and mobility, and death.

Data from the Cardiovascular Health Study document the rate of comorbid depressive symptoms in frail older adults (16.2% of older adults with at least 1 frailty characteristic had a CES-D > 10, including 31% of older adults with 3 or more frailty characteristics, compared to 2.6% of nonfrail older adults) despite study exclusion of individuals who were taking an antidepressant (this is in part why we chose to include patients with a CES-D of > 10, rather than requiring a diagnosis of a depressive disorder such as major depression or dysthymia for this study). The relationship between frailty and depression however goes beyond this association; the five defining characteristics of frailty (exhaustion, decreased energy, weight loss, decreased grip strength, and slow/unsteady gait) overlap significantly with symptoms of geriatric depression (decreased energy and motivation, psychomotor slowing, weight loss, decreased participation in leisure activities).

The proposed study is innovative in that it is focuses on a group of older adults who have been unrepresented (via exclusion criteria) in previous clinical studies (frail older adults with comorbid depressive symptoms), and it treats the comorbid depressive symptoms and targets characteristics of the frailty syndrome in the hopes of altering the prognostic trajectory of this clinical sample. This protocol serves two purposes: 1. It tests the feasibility of recruiting and retaining frail older adults with depressive symptoms in a treatment trial, and 2. It provides pilot data for the effectiveness of an antidepressant medication on treating the characteristics of frailty and the comorbid depressive symptoms.

Study Type

Study Type

Describes the nature of a clinical study. Study types include interventional studies (also called clinical trials), observational studies (including patient registries), and expanded access.
Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

Enrollment

The number of participants in a clinical study. The "anticipated" enrollment is the target number of participants that the researchers need for the study.
100

Phase

Phase

The stage of a clinical trial studying a drug or biological product, based on definitions developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The phase is based on the study's objective, the number of participants, and other characteristics. There are five phases: Early Phase 1 (formerly listed as Phase 0), Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4. Not Applicable is used to describe trials without FDA-defined phases, including trials of devices or behavioral interventions.
  • Phase 4

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

  • United States
    • New York
      • New York, New York, United States, 10032
        • New York State Psychiatric Institute

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

The key requirements that people who want to participate in a clinical study must meet or the characteristics they must have. Eligibility criteria consist of both inclusion criteria (which are required for a person to participate in the study) and exclusion criteria (which prevent a person from participating). Types of eligibility criteria include whether a study accepts healthy volunteers, has age or age group requirements, or is limited by sex.

Ages Eligible for Study

60 years to 95 years (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Anyone with 1 or more characteristics of frailty
  • HRSD>16 and a DSM-IV depressive disorder (e.g. MDD, Dysthymia)
  • Capable of providing informed consent
  • Currently followed by a PCP (had an eval in last 6-months)

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Acute cancer treatment
  • Acute, severe or unstable medical illness
  • End stage medical illness (e.g. liver, kidney, pulmonary)
  • Mini Mental Exam < 24 or a diagnosis of dementia
  • Individuals who do not have capacity to consent
  • Diagnosis of substance abuse or dependence (last 12 months), excluding Nicotine dependence
  • History of psychosis or psychotic disorder or bipolar disorder
  • Patient is considered a significant risk of suicide
  • Subject is considered based on history to be unlikely to respond to the single agent antidepressant (i.e., subjects with treatment resistant depression, including subjects with previous treatment with ECT)
  • History of allergic or adverse reaction to escitalopram or duloxetine, or non-response to adequate trial of escitalopram (at least 4 weeks at dose of 20 mg) or duloxetine (at least 4 weeks at dose of 90mg).

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: N/A
  • Interventional Model: Single Group Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm

Participant Group / Arm

A group or subgroup of participants in a clinical trial that receives a specific intervention/treatment, or no intervention, according to the trial's protocol.
Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.
Experimental: Medication Treatment
Participants are treated with a flexible-dose antidepressant medication for a period of 8 weeks.
Drug: Antidepressant Medication
If patient has a history of non-response or cannot tolerate escitalopram and/or duloxetine, then they will be treated openly with an approved antidepressant.
Other Names:
  • Duloxetine
  • Escitalopram
  • Open treatment

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. Most clinical studies have one primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD)
Time Frame: Week 8
Measure Description: Our target is depressive symptomatology as measured by the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD). The HRSD is a 24-item questionnaire used as an indication of depression and a guide to evaluating recovery. Total scores range from 0-74, not including atypical symptoms sub-scale. A score above 16 is typically considered to indicate the presence of depressive symptoms. Higher scores indicate greater severity.
Week 8
Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD)
Time Frame: 6 Months
Measure Description: Our target is depressive symptomatology as measured by the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD). The HRSD is a 24-item questionnaire used as an indication of depression and a guide to evaluating recovery. Total scores range from 0-74, not including atypical symptoms sub-scale. A score above 16 is typically considered to indicate the presence of depressive symptoms. Higher scores indicate greater severity.
6 Months
Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HRSD)
Time Frame: 12 Months
Measure Description: Our target is depressive symptomatology as measured by the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD). The HRSD is a 24-item questionnaire used as an indication of depression and a guide to evaluating recovery. Total scores range from 0-74, not including atypical symptoms sub-scale. A score above 16 is typically considered to indicate the presence of depressive symptoms. Higher scores indicate greater severity.
12 Months
Hamilton Depression Rating Scale: Stratified by Baseline Frailty
Time Frame: Baseline (Week 0)
Measure Description: Our target is depressive symptomatology as measured by the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD). The HRSD is a 24-item questionnaire used as an indication of depression and a guide to evaluating recovery. Total scores range from 0-74, not including atypical symptoms sub-scale. A score above 16 is typically considered to indicate the presence of depressive symptoms. Higher scores indicate greater severity.
Baseline (Week 0)
Hamilton Depression Rating Scale: Stratified by Baseline Frailty
Time Frame: Week 8
Measure Description: Our target is depressive symptomatology as measured by the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD). The HRSD is a 24-item questionnaire used as an indication of depression and a guide to evaluating recovery. Total scores range from 0-74, not including atypical symptoms sub-scale. A score above 16 is typically considered to indicate the presence of depressive symptoms. Higher scores indicate greater severity.
Week 8
Hamilton Depression Rating Scale: Stratified by Baseline Frailty
Time Frame: Month 6
Measure Description: Our target is depressive symptomatology as measured by the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD). The HRSD is a 24-item questionnaire used as an indication of depression and a guide to evaluating recovery. Total scores range from 0-74, not including atypical symptoms sub-scale. A score above 16 is typically considered to indicate the presence of depressive symptoms. Higher scores indicate greater severity.
Month 6
Hamilton Depression Rating Scale: Stratified by Baseline Frailty
Time Frame: Month 12
Measure Description: Our target is depressive symptomatology as measured by the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD). The HRSD is a 24-item questionnaire used as an indication of depression and a guide to evaluating recovery. Total scores range from 0-74, not including atypical symptoms sub-scale. A score above 16 is typically considered to indicate the presence of depressive symptoms. Higher scores indicate greater severity.
Month 12

Secondary Outcome Measures

Secondary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, a planned outcome measure that is not as important as the primary outcome measure for evaluating the effect of an intervention but is still of interest. Most clinical studies have more than one secondary outcome measure.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
World Health Organization Disability Assessment 2.0 (36-item)
Time Frame: Baseline (Week 0)

Assesses the level of functioning of patients, a component of the frailty evaluation. The scores assigned to each of the items: "none" (0), "mild" (1) "moderate" (2), "severe" (3), and "extreme" (4) - are summed. Each of the items is simply added up without recoding or collapsing of response categories; thus, there is no weighting of individual items. As a result, the simple sum of the scores of the items across all domains constitutes a statistic that is sufficient to describe the degree of functional limitations.

Step 1 - Summing of recoded item scores within each domain. Step 2 - Summing of all six domain scores. Step 3 - Converting the summary score into a metric ranging from 0 to 100 (where 0 = no disability; 100 = full disability).
Baseline (Week 0)
World Health Organization Disability Assessment 2.0 (36-item)
Time Frame: Week 8

Assesses the level of functioning of patients, a component of the frailty evaluation. Simple: the scores assigned to each of the items - "none" (0), "mild" (1) "moderate" (2), "severe" (3), and "extreme" (4) - are summed. This method is referred to as simple scoring because the scores from each of the items are simply added up without recoding or collapsing of response categories; thus, there is no weighting of individual items. This approach is practical to use as a hand-scoring approach and may be the method of choice in busy clinical settings or in paper-pencil interview situations. As a result, the simple sum of the scores of the items across all domains constitutes a statistic that is sufficient to describe the degree of functional limitations.

Step 1 - Summing of recoded item scores within each domain. Step 2 - Summing of all six domain scores. Step 3 - Converting the summary score into a metric ranging from 0 to 100 (where 0 = no disability; 100 = full disability).
Week 8
World Health Organization Disability Assessment 2.0 (36-item)
Time Frame: 6 Months

Assesses the level of functioning of patients, a component of the frailty evaluation. The scores assigned to each of the items: "none" (0), "mild" (1) "moderate" (2), "severe" (3), and "extreme" (4) - are summed. Each of the items is simply added up without recoding or collapsing of response categories; thus, there is no weighting of individual items. As a result, the simple sum of the scores of the items across all domains constitutes a statistic that is sufficient to describe the degree of functional limitations.

Step 1 - Summing of recoded item scores within each domain. Step 2 - Summing of all six domain scores. Step 3 - Converting the summary score into a metric ranging from 0 to 100 (where 0 = no disability; 100 = full disability).
6 Months
World Health Organization Disability Assessment 2.0 (36-item)
Time Frame: 12 Months

Assesses the level of functioning of patients, a component of the frailty evaluation. The scores assigned to each of the items: "none" (0), "mild" (1) "moderate" (2), "severe" (3), and "extreme" (4) - are summed. Each of the items is simply added up without recoding or collapsing of response categories; thus, there is no weighting of individual items. As a result, the simple sum of the scores of the items across all domains constitutes a statistic that is sufficient to describe the degree of functional limitations.

Step 1 - Summing of recoded item scores within each domain. Step 2 - Summing of all six domain scores. Step 3 - Converting the summary score into a metric ranging from 0 to 100 (where 0 = no disability; 100 = full disability).
12 Months
World Health Organization Disability Assessment 2.0 (36-item)--Stratified by Baseline Frailty
Time Frame: Baseline (Week 0)

Assesses the level of functioning of patients, a component of the frailty evaluation. The scores assigned to each of the items: "none" (0), "mild" (1) "moderate" (2), "severe" (3), and "extreme" (4) - are summed. Each of the items is simply added up without recoding or collapsing of response categories; thus, there is no weighting of individual items. As a result, the simple sum of the scores of the items across all domains constitutes a statistic that is sufficient to describe the degree of functional limitations.

Step 1 - Summing of recoded item scores within each domain. Step 2 - Summing of all six domain scores. Step 3 - Converting the summary score into a metric ranging from 0 to 100 (where 0 = no disability; 100 = full disability).
Baseline (Week 0)
World Health Organization Disability Assessment 2.0 (36-item)--Stratified by Baseline Frailty
Time Frame: Week 8

Assesses the level of functioning of patients, a component of the frailty evaluation. The scores assigned to each of the items: "none" (0), "mild" (1) "moderate" (2), "severe" (3), and "extreme" (4) - are summed. Each of the items is simply added up without recoding or collapsing of response categories; thus, there is no weighting of individual items. As a result, the simple sum of the scores of the items across all domains constitutes a statistic that is sufficient to describe the degree of functional limitations.

Step 1 - Summing of recoded item scores within each domain. Step 2 - Summing of all six domain scores. Step 3 - Converting the summary score into a metric ranging from 0 to 100 (where 0 = no disability; 100 = full disability).
Week 8
World Health Organization Disability Assessment 2.0 (36-item)--Stratified by Baseline Frailty
Time Frame: Month 6

Assesses the level of functioning of patients, a component of the frailty evaluation. The scores assigned to each of the items: "none" (0), "mild" (1) "moderate" (2), "severe" (3), and "extreme" (4) - are summed. Each of the items is simply added up without recoding or collapsing of response categories; thus, there is no weighting of individual items. As a result, the simple sum of the scores of the items across all domains constitutes a statistic that is sufficient to describe the degree of functional limitations.

Step 1 - Summing of recoded item scores within each domain. Step 2 - Summing of all six domain scores. Step 3 - Converting the summary score into a metric ranging from 0 to 100 (where 0 = no disability; 100 = full disability).
Month 6
World Health Organization Disability Assessment 2.0 (36-item)--Stratified by Baseline Frailty
Time Frame: Month 12

Assesses the level of functioning of patients, a component of the frailty evaluation. The scores assigned to each of the items: "none" (0), "mild" (1) "moderate" (2), "severe" (3), and "extreme" (4) - are summed. Each of the items is simply added up without recoding or collapsing of response categories; thus, there is no weighting of individual items. As a result, the simple sum of the scores of the items across all domains constitutes a statistic that is sufficient to describe the degree of functional limitations.

Step 1 - Summing of recoded item scores within each domain. Step 2 - Summing of all six domain scores. Step 3 - Converting the summary score into a metric ranging from 0 to 100 (where 0 = no disability; 100 = full disability).
Month 12

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The organization or person who initiates the study and who has authority and control over the study.
New York State Psychiatric Institute

Collaborators

Collaborators

An organization other than the sponsor that provides support for a clinical study. This support may include activities related to funding, design, implementation, data analysis, or reporting.
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)

Investigators

Investigators

A researcher involved in a clinical study. Related terms include site principal investigator, site sub-investigator, study chair, study director, and study principal investigator.
  • Principal Investigator: Patrick Brown, PhD, New York State Psychiatric Institute

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

Study Start

The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "anticipated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date.
February 19, 2014

Primary Completion (Actual)

Primary Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention to collect final data for the primary outcome measure. Whether the clinical study ended according to the protocol or was terminated does not affect this date. For clinical studies with more than one primary outcome measure with different completion dates, this term refers to the date on which data collection is completed for all the primary outcome measures. The "anticipated" primary completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the primary completion date for the study.
December 5, 2019

Study Completion (Actual)

Study Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit). The "anticipated" study completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the study completion date.
December 5, 2020

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

First Submitted

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submitted a study record to ClinicalTrials.gov. There is typically a delay of a few days between the first submitted date and the record's availability on ClinicalTrials.gov (the first posted date).
October 25, 2013

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submits a study record that is consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. The sponsor or investigator may need to revise and submit a study record one or more times before NLM's QC review criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
October 25, 2013

First Posted (Estimate)

First Posted

The date on which the study record was first available on ClinicalTrials.gov after National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review has concluded. There is typically a delay of a few days between the date the study sponsor or investigator submitted the study record and the first posted date.
October 31, 2013

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

Last Update Posted

The most recent date on which changes to a study record were made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. There may be a delay between when the changes were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov by the study's sponsor or investigator (the last update submitted date) and the last update posted date.
January 29, 2021

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator submitted changes to a study record that are consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
January 12, 2021

Last Verified

Last Verified

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator confirmed the information about a clinical study on ClinicalTrials.gov as accurate and current. If a study with a recruitment status of recruiting; not yet recruiting; or active, not recruiting has not been confirmed within the past 2 years, the study's recruitment status is shown as unknown.
January 1, 2021

More Information

Terms related to this study

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

Other Study ID Numbers

Identifiers or ID numbers other than the NCT number that are assigned to a clinical study by the study's sponsor, funders, or others. These numbers may include unique identifiers from other trial registries and National Institutes of Health grant numbers.
  • #6470/7289R
  • K23MH099097-01A1 (U.S. NIH Grant/Contract)

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Major Depressive Disorder

Clinical Trials on Antidepressant Medication

Search Similar Trials

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

Conditions

Rare Diseases

Drug Interventions

Dietary Supplements

Sponsor/Collaborators

Locations

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. For more details carefully read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. ...>>>You can change your preferences or withdraw your consent at any time by deleting the cookies from your website or computer as described in the policy. Please accept it and choose your preferences by ticking the corresponding boxes in the "Manage Settings" section below. Please carefully read our Terms of Service before you proceed with using any part of this website.
«Manage Settings