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

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: Completed
• Conditions: Major Depressive Disorder; Dysthymic Disorder; Depressive Disorder, NOS
• Intervention / Treatment: Drug: Antidepressant Medication

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: Interventional
• Enrollment (Actual): 100
• Phase: Phase 4

Contacts and Locations

Study Locations

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

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• 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

How is the study designed?

Design Details

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

Number of Arms

1

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm	Intervention / Treatment
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

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD)	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)	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)	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	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	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	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	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

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
World Health Organization Disability Assessment 2.0 (36-item)	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)	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)	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)	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	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	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	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	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

• Sponsor: New York State Psychiatric Institute
• Collaborators: National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
• Investigators: Principal Investigator: Patrick Brown, PhD, New York State Psychiatric Institute

Publications and helpful links

General Publications

• Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, Newman AB, Hirsch C, Gottdiener J, Seeman T, Tracy R, Kop WJ, Burke G, McBurnie MA; Cardiovascular Health Study Collaborative Research Group. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001 Mar;56(3):M146-56. doi: 10.1093/gerona/56.3.m146.
• Binder EF, Yarasheski KE, Steger-May K, Sinacore DR, Brown M, Schechtman KB, Holloszy JO. Effects of progressive resistance training on body composition in frail older adults: results of a randomized, controlled trial. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2005 Nov;60(11):1425-31. doi: 10.1093/gerona/60.11.1425.
• Brown M, Sinacore DR, Binder EF, Kohrt WM. Physical and performance measures for the identification of mild to moderate frailty. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2000 Jun;55(6):M350-5. doi: 10.1093/gerona/55.6.m350.
• Brown PJ, Roose SP, O'Boyle KR, Ciarleglio A, Maas B, Igwe KC, Chung S, Gomez S, Naqvi M, Brickman AM, Rutherford BR. Frailty and Its Correlates in Adults With Late Life Depression. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2020 Feb;28(2):145-154. doi: 10.1016/j.jagp.2019.10.005. Epub 2019 Oct 14.
• Brown PJ, Ciarleglio A, Roose SP, Garcia CM, Chung S, Alvarez J, Stein A, Gomez S, Rutherford BR. Frailty Worsens Antidepressant Treatment Outcomes in Late Life Depression. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2021 Sep;29(9):944-955. doi: 10.1016/j.jagp.2020.12.024. Epub 2020 Dec 25.

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start (Actual): February 19, 2014
• Primary Completion (Actual): December 5, 2019
• Study Completion (Actual): December 5, 2020

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: October 25, 2013
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: October 25, 2013
• First Posted (Estimate): October 31, 2013

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Actual): January 29, 2021
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: January 12, 2021
• Last Verified: January 1, 2021

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Additional Relevant MeSH Terms: Behavioral Symptoms; Mental Disorders; Pathologic Processes; Mood Disorders; Depression; Depressive Disorder; Disease; Frailty; Depressive Disorder, Major; Dysthymic Disorder; Physiological Effects of Drugs; Neurotransmitter Agents; Molecular Mechanisms of Pharmacological Action; Peripheral Nervous System Agents; Analgesics; Sensory System Agents; Psychotropic Drugs; Serotonin Uptake Inhibitors; Neurotransmitter Uptake Inhibitors; Membrane Transport Modulators; Serotonin Agents; Dopamine Agents; Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation; Serotonin and Noradrenaline Reuptake Inhibitors; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Citalopram; Antidepressive Agents
• Other Study ID Numbers: #6470/7289R; K23MH099097-01A1 (U.S. NIH Grant/Contract)