Key Takeaways

  1. This was an exceptionally high-risk TRD cohort: participants averaged approximately 29 years of depression, 13 failed antidepressant treatments, 71.0% had failed at least 1 interventional treatment in the current MDE, and 40.4% had attempted suicide.
  2. The suicidal ideation outcome was based on a prespecified composite suicidal ideation score that integrated MADRS item 10, QIDS-C item 12, and QIDS-SR item 12 into a 0 to 9 scale, allowing clinicians to interpret change across both clinician-rated and self-reported ideation.
  3. For patients entering with meaningful suicidal ideation, the benefit signal favored persistence of improvement over time rather than a large separation in mean scores at single visits: active VNS showed more months with clinically meaningful improvement across months 3-12 (OR = 1.43; 95% CI, 1.004–2.021; P = .047), even though mean CSI differences at individual time points were not significant.
  4. Symptom improvement in suicidal ideation was gradual in both groups, consistent with VNS not being an acute antisuicidal intervention; by month 12, the mean (SD) drop in CSI score was 2.42 (0.19) for active VNS and 2.12 (0.19) for sham VNS, and the visit effect across treatments was significant (P<.001).
  5. The treatment effect was directionally consistent regardless of how suicidal ideation was measured: across single-item and 2-item combinations, effect sizes ranged from 1.31 to 1.49 for meaningful or better improvement and from 1.27 to 1.46 for remission.
  6. Applicability is limited for patients with acute suicidal intent because RECOVER excluded participants with severe suicidal intent/behavior at baseline; these findings are more relevant to managing chronic suicidal ideation in markedly treatment-resistant unipolar depression.
Read full article
Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc. (PPP) makes no warranties about the accuracy or completeness of any information published in The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry or other PPP materials, and disclaims liability for any use or non-use of that information. Clinicians should not rely solely on these materials and should exercise their own professional judgment when making patient care decisions on an individualized basis.