Addressing Partial Treatment Response in MDD Patients
About one third of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) achieve only a partial response to antidepressant therapy. This often leaves them with symptoms that could lead to an inability to enjoy life, poor work and cognitive performance, impairment in psychosocial activities, and even suicidal ideation.
Dr George Papakostas, from Harvard Medical School, discusses the option of adjunctive therapy to improve symptom control for these patients.
He details how atypical antipsychotic drugs such as aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, cariprazine, olanzapine, and quetiapine can be added to antidepressant therapy to better control symptoms.
The VAST-D study, he reports, showed that use of an atypical antipsychotic as adjunctive therapy was found to be superior to switching antidepressants in patients who had not experienced sufficient symptom improvement with antidepressant therapy alone.
Dr Papakostas also explains how combining antidepressants such as bupropion and mirtazapine can sometimes be an effective strategy in certain patients who have partial response to antidepressant monotherapy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
E&E News
30 minutes ago
- E&E News
‘Cognitive dissonance': Trump's science policy at odds with MAHA goals
The White House's inaugural 'Make America Healthy Again' report decried industry influence over environmental regulations. President Donald Trump's scientific integrity order, signed one day later, doesn't even refer to political interference. The May 23 executive order spelling out the standards for top-tier science 'doesn't mention the elephant in the room, which is political interference,' said Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, who recently retired as EPA's head of its research office after nearly 40 years with the agency. 'In fact, they almost seem to be encouraging it,' she continued. Advertisement Absent from the order are any mentions about independence to ensure federal researchers can do their work without political influence. That could be crucial for EPA, where Trump administration officials are planning to dissolve the agency's only office dedicated to independent research.
E&E News
31 minutes ago
- E&E News
Trump cuts would scrap USGS biological research arm
The Trump administration wants to unplug a high-powered U.S. Geological Survey research program whose scientists have helped protect wildlife, manage forests, thwart pests and illuminate nature for over three decades. Eliminating the biological research branch of the USGS, as called for in President Donald Trump's fiscal 2026 budget proposal, would accelerate the administration's targeting of scientific experts and studies already shown in layoffs and grant cancellations at the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health. But the potential scrapping of the USGS program is also goading some scientists out of their labs and into lobbying, as they deploy letters, phone calls, professional advocates, social media messaging, virtual rallies and more in their bid to save a nearly $300 million-a-year program. Advertisement 'It seems largely political,' Shahid Naeem, a prominent Columbia University professor of ecology, said of the proposed USGS budget slashing in an interview. 'And from a scientific point of view, it's really going to cost the country billions of dollars if we eliminate these programs which keep watch on things like avian influenza, water quality and forest fires.' Ron Pulliam, an emeritus professor at the University of Georgia, added in an email that elimination of the program is a 'terrible idea based on the assumption that if you are unaware of bad news everything will be OK.' More than 30 years ago, Pulliam was the first head of the biological research program that's now called the USGS Ecosystem Mission Area. The Ecosystem Mission Area is one of five designated mission areas within USGS. It received about $293 million for fiscal 2025. Trump's proposal would drop it to zero in fiscal 2026. The program includes 16 research centers, from the Great Lakes Science Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan, to the Western Fisheries Research Center in Seattle. Scientists in Colorado, for instance, have examined how wildland fire risks and the potential benefits of forest thinning can best be communicated to at-risk communities. Elsewhere, researchers monitor bat populations threatened by wind turbines and fungal disease. Still other USGS scientists are working to fight quagga mussels, a particularly vexing invasive species. In Alaska, they count loon populations and measure high-altitude snow packs. They keep an eye on sediment tainting Chesapeake Bay and on the Everglades' altered water flows. The program helps fund, as well, cooperative research units like one at Oregon State University, where more than 30 scientists, graduate students and assistants study fish and wildlife. 'Losing the EMA means losing many critical partners and projects that promote evidence-based recommendations for conservation of natural resources,' said Selina Heppell, professor and head of the university's Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Sciences, in an email. Bipartisan appeal Last year, then-USGS Director David Applegate promoted a proposed 10 percent budget increase for the Ecosystem Mission Area by citing its work on 'migration science for huntable big-game populations.' The choice to highlight hunting benefits before a House panel stocked with hunting-friendly GOP members could be interpreted as tactical, with Applegate citing 'the unique USGS expertise and technical capacity' that helps sustain economies in the West that rely on hunting and tourism, as well as those where people hunt for subsistence. Applegate is now back in a career position as USGS's chief scientist. The agency currently has an acting director while Trump's nominee — geologist Ned Mamula — awaits Senate confirmation. The Trump administration's proposed fiscal 2026 budget does not elaborate on the proposal to end the Ecosystem Mission Area's funding. The proposed budget reports that the USGS employed about 7,870 full-time workers in fiscal 2024. The proposed budget envisions total USGS employment falling to 5,153 in fiscal 2026. In a budget summary, the USGS cites its intention to eliminate 'grants to universities and other work that is duplicative of non-Federal research programs' and that 'supports social agendas [like] climate change research.' The agency cites plans to focus instead on 'higher priority energy and minerals activities' and to help 'streamline government.' In response to a request from POLITICO's E&E News for additional details about personnel numbers, future work and the rationale for eliminating the program, the Interior Department provided a statement. 'Interior proudly supports President Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' — a historic, America First budget that delivers middle-class tax cuts, unleashes American energy, secures our borders, and invests in the infrastructure and security of our public lands,' the statement said. The genesis of the proposal is unclear, but the notion cropped up in the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 policy playbook. The chapter on the Interior Department was authored by conservative attorney William Perry Pendley, who served as de facto acting director of the Bureau of Land Management in Trump's first term. 'Abolish the Biological Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey and obtain necessary scientific research about species of concern from universities via competitive requests for proposals,' the Project 2025 Interior Department chapter stated. The 'Biological Resources Division' was formerly the name of what has been called the Ecosystem Mission Area for the last 15 years. The Project 2025 playbook did not elaborate on the perceived benefits of ending the USGS ecosystem work. Reached by telephone Wednesday, Pendley said, 'I'm not going to discuss that right now. I appreciate the call.' Scientists lobby Supporters of the USGS research are trying to call attention to the proposed cuts. The National Wildlife Federation on May 22 convened a 'virtual rally' that drew about 2,000 participants to an hour-long program in support of the USGS Ecosystem Mission Area. Naeem, a former president of the 8,000-member Ecological Society of America, ventured onto Capitol Hill in May to discuss the proposal with Democratic congressional offices. 'We've been in constant communication with our members to be proactive,' Naeem said. 'If our people speak up all across the United States and talk to their senators and members of Congress, that's probably where we're going to have the most effect.' Upwards of 60 science-related organizations, from the American Geophysical Union to the Weed Science Society of America, signed an April 30 letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and a May 9 letter to leaders of the House and Senate appropriations committees and both congressional natural resources committees. An umbrella group called the USGS Coalition, representing more than 85 academic, business and scientific organizations, has likewise weighed in with testimony presented in April to House appropriators. The director of one cooperative state-and-federal research center, granted anonymity because they had not been authorized to speak publicly about the issue, said, 'We are calling our representatives, signing letters and writing editorials for newspapers.' For the lawmakers, the proposed USGS budget cut is just one of many they will face. Asked on Thursday if he had any thoughts about the proposal, Republican Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho, the chair of the House Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, said simply 'no.' A spokesperson for the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation likewise said the organization had no reaction at the proposal at the present time. The program's roots stretch back to 1993, when the Clinton administration merged Interior's scattered biological research work from seven bureaus into a new National Biological Service contained within the department. It was not always a smooth transition, facing both bureaucratic and political resistance. Conservative lawmakers, in particular, cited alleged threats to private property rights from what had initially been dubbed the National Biological Survey. 'There was a perception that it was a band of environmental activists who would seek to find endangered species on private property, and I would say, in some instances, that probably happened,' then-Rep. Wayne Gilchrest, a moderate Maryland Republican, said in 1995. In 1996, the National Biological Service was again renamed and transferred into the USGS. In 2010, as part of a larger USGS reorganization. Most of this work was folded into the newly established Ecosystem Mission Area. Other USGS mission areas, such as Natural Hazards and Water Resources, would get less money but still survive under Trump's proposed fiscal 2026 budget. Reporter Garrett Downs also contributed.
Gizmodo
37 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
Study Links TikTok Skincare Routines to Lifelong Skin Allergies and Other Risks
A search for the hashtag 'skincare' on TikTok turns up more than 35 million videos, but most follow the same formula. 'Get ready with me,' a beauty influencer coos before walking viewers through their routine, which often involves several steps and a slew of products. These videos are wildly popular, but new research suggests they may do more harm than good. In the first study of the risks and benefits of social media skincare routines—published today in the journal Pediatrics—Northwestern University researchers analyzed the regimens of TikTok creators aged seven to 18. The findings revealed that these girls use an average of six different products on their faces, and some use more than a dozen. The typical routine costs roughly $168 per month and includes 11 different active ingredients, which are chemicals designed to address a specific skin concern such as acne or aging. The creators of these videos are chasing flawless skin, and they want to help you find it too. But the reality is that layering this many active ingredients at once increases the risk of developing skin irritation, Sun sensitivity, and a skin allergy known as contact dermatitis, according to the researchers. Previous studies have shown that developing this allergy can limit the kinds of soaps, shampoos, and cosmetics you can use for the rest of your life. 'That high risk of irritation came from both using multiple active ingredients at the same time, such as hydroxy acids, as well as applying the same active ingredient unknowingly over and over again when that active ingredient was found in three, four, five different products,' said lead author Molly Hales, a postdoctoral research fellow and dermatologist at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, according to a university statement. For this study, Hales and a colleague each created a new TikTok account and reported themselves to be 13 years old. They gathered a sample of 100 unique skincare videos, then documented the demographics of the creators; the number and types of products used; and the total cost of each regimen. All but one of the 82 creators were girls with clear, light, blemish-free skin, according to the study. The researchers then created a list of each product's active and inactive ingredients and identified which were most likely to cause contact dermatitis. The 100 videos featured 260 distinct products. Among the 25 top-viewed videos, 76% contained at least one potential contact allergen—typically fragrance. But the most common ingredients were chemical exfoliants called alpha-hydroxy acids (AHAs). The top videos contained three AHAs per regimen on average, with some featuring up to seven of these exfoliants. The most popular active ingredient, citric acid, was found in 29% of all products. AHAs can cause skin irritation and increase Sun sensitivity, according to the Food and Drug Administration. Because of this, it's important to use these ingredients in moderation and follow them with SPF to prevent sunburn and reduce the risk of developing skin cancer. Despite this, only 26% of videos about daytime skincare routines included sunscreen. 'The overall low rate of sunscreen use in the videos represents a significant missed opportunity, particularly for the youngest creators and users who do not yet need acne treatments, antiaging ingredients, or even topical emollients but would benefit from diligent sun protection,' the authors state. In one video, a 10-year-old with red hair and fair, freckled skin—which are markers of melanoma risk—applied eight different products, none of which contained SPF. Gizmodo reached out to TikTok for comment, but the company did not respond by the time of publication. A TikTok spokesperson told The Guardian, 'this type of content is common across all media, and the authors admit they did not assess its impact on teen wellbeing. However, they did find actual benefits to teen self-expression, parent-teen bonding, and building a supportive community on TikTok.' Still, the researchers concluded that these videos 'offer little to no benefit for the pediatric populations they are targeting.' The regimens are overly complicated, time consuming, expensive, and increase children's exposure to irritation, allergy, and sun damage, they say. What's more, the proliferation of skincare content has increased the stigma around acne, eczema, aging, and other skin conditions, Tess McPherson of the British Association of Dermatologists—who was not involved in the study—told The Guardian. 'Younger and younger children are seeking skincare products when they don't need them, they're not helpful,' she said. 'This is a very concerning statement on society and how we view how skin should look.'
