Aripiprazole augmentation versus antidepressant switching for patients with major depressive disorder: A 6-week, randomized, rater-blinded, prospective study

Evaluation of akathisia in patients receiving selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors/serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors

Akathisia is an underestimated but disturbing extrapyramidal side effect of antidepressants, which could reduce treatment compliance in mood disorders. This study aimed to investigate the frequency and risk factors in patients treated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors/serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SSRI/SNRI). In addition, we assessed the impact of akathisia on the quality of life (QoL). Patients were aged between 18 and 75 years, receiving an SSRI/SNRI for 4-8 weeks, and were diagnosed with anxiety, depression, or obsessive-compulsive disorder. The Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale was used to assess the severity of the akathisia. QoL was evaluated using the Short Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaire. Akathisia was observed in 25% (50/198) of patients. Smokers and younger patients were more frequent among patients with akathisia. Physical functioning, physical role, vitality, and mental health domains of the SF-36 were reduced in the presence of akathisia. In conclusion, our results suggest that akathisia is not a rare side effect of SSRI/SNRI in patients with mood disorders, especially in smokers and younger patients. In addition, akathisia may reduce treatment compliance owing to a reduction in QoL. Further investigations are needed to confirm the risk factors, frequency, and consequences of treatment compliance for SSRI/SNRI-induced akathisia in patients with mood disorders.

Augmentation strategies for treatment resistant major depression: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and discontinuation of augmentation agents in adult patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analyses (NMA) to combine direct and indirect comparisons of augmentation agents.

METHODS

We included randomized controlled trials comparing one active drug with another or with placebo following a treatment course up to 24 weeks. Nineteen agents were included: stimulants, atypical antipsychotics, thyroid hormones, antidepressants, and mood stabilizers. Data for response/remission and all-cause discontinuation rates were analyzed. We estimated effect-size by relative risk using pairwise and NMA with random-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 65 studies (N = 12,415) with 19 augmentation agents were included in the NMA. Our findings from the NMA for response rates, compared to placebo, were significant for: liothyronine, nortriptyline, aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, quetiapine, lithium, modafinil, olanzapine (fluoxetine), cariprazine, and lisdexamfetamine. For remission rates, compared to placebo, were significant for: thyroid hormone(T4), aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, risperidone, quetiapine, and olanzapine (fluoxetine). Compared to placebo, ziprasidone, mirtazapine, and cariprazine had statistically significant higher discontinuation rates. Overall, 24% studies were rated as having low risk of bias (RoB), 63% had moderate RoB and 13% had high RoB.

LIMITATIONS

Heterogeneity in TRD definitions, variable trial duration and methodological clinical design of older studies and small number of trials per comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

This NMA suggests a superiority of the regulatory approved adjunctive atypical antipsychotics, thyroid hormones, dopamine compounds (modafinil and lisdexamfetamine) and lithium. Acceptability was lower with ziprasidone, mirtazapine, and cariprazine. Further research and head-to-head studies should be considered to strengthen the best available options for TRD.

Treatment-Resistant Depression in Poland—Epidemiology and Treatment

(1) Background: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is one of the most prevalent psychiatric disorders worldwide. Although several antidepressant drugs have been developed, up to 30% of patients fail to achieve remission, and acute remission rates decrease with the number of treatment steps required. The aim of the current project was to estimate and describe the population of treatment-resistant depression (TRD) patients in outpatient clinics in Poland. (2) Methods: The project involved a representative sample of psychiatrists working in outpatient clinics, chosen through a process of quota random sampling. The doctors completed two questionnaires on a consecutive series of patients with MDD, which captured the patients’ demographics, comorbidities, and medical histories. TRD was defined as no improvement seen after a minimum of two different antidepressant drug therapies applied in sufficient doses for a minimum of 4 weeks each. The data were weighted and extrapolated to the population of TRD outpatients in Poland. (3) Results: A total of 76 psychiatrists described 1781 MDD patients, out of which 396 fulfilled the criteria of TRD. The TRD patients constituted 25.2% of all MDD patients, which led to the number of TRD outpatients in Poland being estimated at 34,800. The demographics, comorbidities, medical histories, and histories of treatment of Polish TRD patients were described. In our sample of the TRD population (mean age: 45.6 ± 13.1 years; female: 64%), the patients had experienced 2.1 ± 1.6 depressive episodes (including the current one), and the mean duration of the current episode was 4.8 ± 4.4 months. In terms of treatment strategies, most patients (around 70%) received monotherapy during the first three therapies, while combination antidepressant drugs (ADs) were applied more often from the fourth line of treatment. The use of additional medications and augmentation was reported in only up to one third of the TRD patients. During all of the treatment steps, patients most often received a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) and a serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI). (4) Conclusions: TRD is a serious problem, affecting approximately one fourth of all depressive patients and nearly 35,000 Poles.

The use of sequential pharmacotherapy for the treatment of acute major depression: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is a chronic, relapsing, and remitting disorder affecting over 250 million persons each year worldwide. More than 50% of the patients do not respond to their initial antidepressant treatment and may benefit from sequential pharmacotherapy for the acute treatment of their MDD. Although guidelines outline options for next-step treatments, there is a paucity of evidence to select specific second- or third-step treatments.

AREAS COVERED

This scoping review synthesizes and discusses available evidence for sequential pharmacotherapy for MDD. MEDLINE was searched from inception to 7 July 2020; 4490 studies were identified. We selected meta-analyses and reports on clinical trials that were judged to inform the sequential selection of pharmacotherapy for MDD.

EXPERT OPINION

Most relevant published trials are focused on, and support, the use of augmentation pharmacotherapy. There is also some support for other strategies such as combining or switching antidepressants. In the future, more studies need to directly compare these sequential options. To provide more personalized treatment within the framework of precision psychiatry, these studies should include an assessment of moderators and mediators ('mechanism') of antidepressant response.

Effectiveness and Tolerability of Korean Red Ginseng Augmentation in Major Depressive Disorder Patients with Difficult-to-treat in Routine Practice

Objective

: To test clinical effectiveness and tolerability of Korean Red Ginseng augmentation (RGA) in major depressive disorder (MDD) patients with difficult-to-treat.

Methods

Thirty six patients were enrolled in this 6 weeks, prospective, clinical trial. Rating scales were MontgomeryÅsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Patient Health Questionnaire-15, Clinical Global Impression-improvement (CGI-I), and Patient Satisfaction Score. The primary endpoint was a remission rate measured by MADRS score at the end of study (≤ 10). Clinical outcomes and tolerability were assessed at baseline, week 2, and week 6.

Results

Among 36 patients, 26 patients completed the study and 28 patients had post-baseline visit data. The remission rate by MADRS score was 39.3% (11/28) and 57.1% by CGI-I scores of 1 or 2 at the end of the study. The mean change of MADRS score was significantly decreased by 44.4% from baseline to the end of study. The most frequent adverse events were headache (7/28, 25.0%) during the study.

Conclusion

Our study indicates the putative effectiveness and tolerability of RGA for treating MDD with difficult-to-treat in clinical practice. However, adequately powered, randomized, controlled trials will be needed to confirm these results.

Interventions to improve return to work in depressed people

BACKGROUND

Work disability such as sickness absence is common in people with depression.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing work disability in employees with depressive disorders.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO until April 4th 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs of work-directed and clinical interventions for depressed people that included days of sickness absence or being off work as an outcome. We also analysed the effects on depression and work functioning.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted the data and rated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We used standardised mean differences (SMDs) or risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) to pool study results in studies we judged to be sufficiently similar.  MAIN RESULTS: In this update, we added 23 new studies. In total, we included 45 studies with 88 study arms, involving 12,109 participants with either a major depressive disorder or a high level of depressive symptoms. Risk of bias The most common types of bias risk were detection bias (27 studies) and attrition bias (22 studies), both for the outcome of sickness absence. Work-directed interventions Work-directed interventions combined with clinical interventions A combination of a work-directed intervention and a clinical intervention probably reduces days of sickness absence within the first year of follow-up (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.12; 9 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). This translates back to 0.5 fewer (95% CI -0.7 to -0.2) sick leave days in the past two weeks or 25 fewer days during one year (95% CI -37.5 to -11.8). The intervention does not lead to fewer persons being off work beyond one year follow-up (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.09; 2 studies, high-certainty evidence). The intervention may reduce depressive symptoms (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.01; 8 studies, low-certainty evidence) and probably has a small effect on work functioning (SMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.06; 5 studies, moderate-certainty evidence) within the first year of follow-up.  Stand alone work-directed interventions A specific work-directed intervention alone may increase the number of sickness absence days compared with work-directed care as usual (SMD 0.39, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.74; 2 studies, low-certainty evidence) but probably does not lead to more people being off work within the first year of follow-up (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.11; 1 study, moderate-certainty evidence) or beyond (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.22; 2 studies, moderate-certainty evidence). There is probably no effect on depressive symptoms (SMD -0.10, 95% -0.30 CI to 0.10; 4 studies, moderate-certainty evidence) within the first year of follow-up and there may be no effect on depressive symptoms beyond that time (SMD 0.18, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.49; 1 study, low-certainty evidence). The intervention may also not lead to better work functioning (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.90 to 0.26; 1 study, low-certainty evidence) within the first year of follow-up.   Psychological interventions A psychological intervention, either face-to-face, or an E-mental health intervention, with or without professional guidance, may reduce the number of sickness absence days, compared with care as usual (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.28 to -0.03; 9 studies, low-certainty evidence). It may also reduce depressive symptoms (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.15, 8 studies, low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether these psychological interventions improve work ability (SMD -0.15 95% CI -0.46 to 0.57; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Psychological intervention combined with antidepressant medication Two studies compared the effect of a psychological intervention combined with antidepressants to antidepressants alone. One study combined psychodynamic therapy with tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) medication and another combined telephone-administered cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI). We are uncertain if this intervention reduces the number of sickness absence days (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.99 to 0.24; 2 studies, very low-certainty evidence) but found that there may be no effect on depressive symptoms (SMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.12; 2 studies, low-certainty evidence). Antidepressant medication only Three studies compared the effectiveness of SSRI to selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) medication on reducing sickness absence and yielded highly inconsistent results. Improved care Overall, interventions to improve care did not lead to fewer days of sickness absence, compared to care as usual (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.06; 7 studies, moderate-certainty evidence). However, in studies with a low risk of bias, the intervention probably leads to fewer days of sickness absence in the first year of follow-up (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.05; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Improved care probably leads to fewer depressive symptoms (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.07; 7 studies, moderate-certainty evidence) but may possibly lead to a decrease in work-functioning (SMD 0.5, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.66; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). Exercise Supervised strength exercise may reduce sickness absence, compared to relaxation (SMD -1.11; 95% CI -1.68 to -0.54; one study, low-certainty evidence). However, aerobic exercise probably is not more effective than relaxation or stretching (SMD -0.06; 95% CI -0.36 to 0.24; 2 studies, moderate-certainty evidence). Both studies found no differences between the two conditions in depressive symptoms.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A combination of a work-directed intervention and a clinical intervention probably reduces the number of sickness absence days, but at the end of one year or longer follow-up, this does not lead to more people in the intervention group being at work. The intervention may also reduce depressive symptoms and probably increases work functioning more than care as usual. Specific work-directed interventions may not be more effective than usual work-directed care alone. Psychological interventions may reduce the number of sickness absence days, compared with care as usual. Interventions to improve clinical care probably lead to lower sickness absence and lower levels of depression, compared with care as usual. There was no evidence of a difference in effect on sickness absence of one antidepressant medication compared to another. Further research is needed to assess which combination of work-directed and clinical interventions works best.

Short and long-term treatment outcomes of stepwise psychopharmacotherapy based on early clinical decision in patients with depressive disorders

BACKGROUND

To investigate the effects of stepwise pharmacotherapy based on early clinical decision-making on short- and long-term treatment outcomes in outpatients with depressive disorders in a naturalistic one-year prospective design.

METHODS

Patients were recruited at a University hospital in South Korea from March 2012 to April 2017. At baseline, 1262 patients received antidepressant monotherapy. For patients with an insufficient response or uncomfortable side effects, next treatment steps (1, 2, 3, and 4 or over) with alternative strategies (switching, augmentation, combination, and mixtures of these approaches) were administered considering measurements and patient preference at every 3 weeks in the acute treatment phase (3, 6, 9, and 12 weeks) (N=1246), and at every 3 months in the continuation treatment phase (6, 9, and 12 months) (N=1015). Remission was defined as a Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score of ≤ 7.

RESULTS

Remission was more frequently achieved with increasing treatment steps and advanced treatment strategies over the treatment period, while the superior effect of treatment Step 4 or over no longer persisted in the continuation treatment phase. Augmentation + combination strategy was associated with the best outcome, with least benefit associated with a switching strategy compared to monotherapy continuation. Adverse events were more frequent with increasing treatment steps and advanced treatment strategies, while numbers of visits did not statistically differ by treatment steps or strategies.

LIMITATION

The lack of a comparison group without early clinical decision due to the descriptive nature of study design limits to prove directly the study question.

CONCLUSIONS

A stepwise pharmacotherapy approach based on early clinical decision-making in the light of measurements and patient preference could enhance both short- and long-term treatment outcomes in depressive disorders.

Pharmacological Treatments for Patients with Treatment-Resistant Depression

Over a third of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) do not have an adequate response to first-line antidepressant treatments, i.e., they have treatment-resistant depression (TRD). These patients tend to have a more severe course of illness and are at an increased risk of suicide. Next step treatment options for patients with TRD, include switching to a different antidepressant, combining more than one antidepressant, or augmenting an antidepressant with another (non-antidepressant) medication. It is unclear which of these treatment approaches should be applied to a given patient, and in what order. Due to this ambiguity, comparing antidepressants and augmentation agents on the basis of their efficacy, tolerability, and speed of symptom relief would be beneficial for clinicians. To accomplish this, a systematic search was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Only randomized controlled trials were included in this qualitative synthesis, resulting in 66 articles. This review identified several effective pharmaco-therapeutic strategies that are currently available for patients with TRD. Ketamine and esketamine appear to be effective for the treatment of TRD. Augmentation with certain second generation antipsychotics, such as quetiapine or aripiprazole is likewise effective, and may be preferred over switching to antidepressant monotherapy. While the combination of olanzapine and fluoxetine was one of the first pharmacotherapy approved for TRD, and its use may be limited by metabolic side-effects. Other effective strategies include augmentation with lithium, liothyronine (T3), lamotrigine, or combination of antidepressants including bupropion, tricyclics, or mirtazapine. There is insufficient research to demonstrate the efficacy of ziprasidone or levothyroxine (T4). A shared decision-making approach is recommended to guide treatment selection to address each patient’s individual needs.

Hamilton scale and MADRS are interchangeable in meta-analyses but can disagree at trial level

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Major depressive disorder is a multidimensional disease, in which demonstrating the efficacy of treatments is difficult. The Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) and the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) cover different domains but are used interchangeably as primary measures of the outcome in trials and-with standardized measures-in meta-analyses. We aimed at understanding (i) whether the choice of the outcome measurement tool can influence the outcome of a trial, and if so, (ii) whether one systematically outperforms the other, and (iii) whether using standardized measures of the effect in meta-analysis is justified.

METHODS

Short-term randomized trials in patients with major depressive disorder that used both the scales were systematically searched and the results were collected. To quantify the differences in the results-both in terms of the standardized mean difference (SMD) and odds ratio (OR) for response-and their range, data were analyzed and plotted with the Bland-Altman method.

RESULTS

161 comparisons from 80 studies were included, involving a total of 18,189 patients. Neither of the two scales appears systematically more sensitive to the treatment effect than the other in terms of SMDs (P-value = 0.06, 95% CI -0.044 to 0.001) or ORs (P-value = 0.15, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.04). However, the variability of differences between the HRSD and MADRS largely depends on the number of patients included in the comparison.

CONCLUSION

No systematic differences between the two scales were found supporting the use of standardized measures in meta-analyses. However, the same trial may give very different results with either scale, especially in small trials. Further research is needed to understand the causes of this variability.

Management of Treatment-Resistant Depression in Real-World Clinical Practice Settings Across Asia

PURPOSE

Consensus is lacking on the management of treatment-resistant depression (TRD), resulting in significant variations on how TRD patients are being managed in real-world practice. A survey explored how clinicians managed TRD across Asia, followed by an expert panel that interpreted the survey results and provided recommendations on how TRD could be managed in real-world clinical settings.

METHODS

Between March and July 2018, 246 clinicians from Hong Kong, Japan, Mainland China, South Korea, and Taiwan completed a survey related to their treatment approaches for TRD.

RESULTS

The survey showed physicians using more polytherapy (71%) compared to maintaining patients on monotherapy (29%). The most commonly (23%) administered polytherapy involved antidepressant augmentation with antipsychotics that 19% of physicians also indicated as their most important approach for managing TRD. The highest number of physicians (34%) ranked switching to another class of antidepressants as their most important approach, while 16% and 9% chose antidepressant combinations and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Taking into account the survey results, the expert panel made general recommendations on the management of TRD. TRD partial-responders to antidepressants should be considered for augmentation with second-generation antipsychotics. For non-responders, switching to another class of antidepressants ought to be considered. TRD patients achieving remission with acute treatment should consider continuing their antidepressants for at least another 6 months to prevent relapse. ECT is a treatment consideration for patients with severe depression or persistent symptoms despite multiple adequate trials of antidepressants. Physicians should also consider the response, tolerability and adherence to the current and previous antidepressants, the severity of symptoms, comorbidities, concomitant medications, preferences, and cost when choosing a TRD treatment approach for each individual patient.

Pharmacological interventions for treatment-resistant depression in adults

BACKGROUND

Although antidepressants are often a first-line treatment for adults with moderate to severe depression, many people do not respond adequately to medication, and are said to have treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Little evidence exists to inform the most appropriate 'next step' treatment for these people.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of standard pharmacological treatments for adults with TRD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR) (March 2016), CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science (31 December 2018), the World Health Organization trials portal and ClinicalTrials.gov for unpublished and ongoing studies, and screened bibliographies of included studies and relevant systematic reviews without date or language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with participants aged 18 to 74 years with unipolar depression (based on criteria from DSM-IV-TR or earlier versions, International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10, Feighner criteria or Research Diagnostic Criteria) who had not responded to a minimum of four weeks of antidepressant treatment at a recommended dose. Interventions were: (1) increasing the dose of antidepressant monotherapy; (2) switching to a different antidepressant monotherapy; (3) augmenting treatment with another antidepressant; (4) augmenting treatment with a non-antidepressant. All were compared with continuing antidepressant monotherapy. We excluded studies of non-standard pharmacological treatments (e.g. sex hormones, vitamins, herbal medicines and food supplements).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers used standard Cochrane methods to extract data, assess risk of bias, and resolve disagreements. We analysed continuous outcomes with mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated a relative risk (RR) and 95% CI. Where sufficient data existed, we conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 RCTs (2731 participants). Nine were conducted in outpatient settings and one in both in- and outpatients. Mean age of participants ranged from 42 - 50.2 years, and most were female. One study investigated switching to, or augmenting current antidepressant treatment with, another antidepressant (mianserin). Another augmented current antidepressant treatment with the antidepressant mirtazapine. Eight studies augmented current antidepressant treatment with a non-antidepressant (either an anxiolytic (buspirone) or an antipsychotic (cariprazine; olanzapine; quetiapine (3 studies); or ziprasidone (2 studies)). We judged most studies to be at a low or unclear risk of bias. Only one of the included studies was not industry-sponsored. There was no evidence of a difference in depression severity when current treatment was switched to mianserin (MD on Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) = -1.8, 95% CI -5.22 to 1.62, low-quality evidence)) compared with continuing on antidepressant monotherapy. Nor was there evidence of a difference in numbers dropping out of treatment (RR 2.08, 95% CI 0.94 to 4.59, low-quality evidence; dropouts 38% in the mianserin switch group; 18% in the control). Augmenting current antidepressant treatment with mianserin was associated with an improvement in depression symptoms severity scores from baseline (MD on HAM-D -4.8, 95% CI -8.18 to -1.42; moderate-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in numbers dropping out (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.72; low-quality evidence; 19% dropouts in the mianserin-augmented group; 38% in the control). When current antidepressant treatment was augmented with mirtazapine, there was little difference in depressive symptoms (MD on Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) -1.7, 95% CI -4.03 to 0.63; high-quality evidence) and no evidence of a difference in dropout numbers (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.62; dropouts 2% in mirtazapine-augmented group; 3% in the control). Augmentation with buspirone provided no evidence of a benefit in terms of a reduction in depressive symptoms (MD on Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) -0.30, 95% CI -9.48 to 8.88; low-quality evidence) or numbers of drop-outs (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.53; low-quality evidence; dropouts 11% in buspirone-augmented group; 19% in the control). Severity of depressive symptoms reduced when current treatment was augmented with cariprazine (MD on MADRS -1.50, 95% CI -2.74 to -0.25; high-quality evidence), olanzapine (MD on HAM-D -7.9, 95% CI -16.76 to 0.96; low-quality evidence; MD on MADRS -12.4, 95% CI -22.44 to -2.36; low-quality evidence), quetiapine (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.18; I2 = 6%, high-quality evidence), or ziprasidone (MD on HAM-D -2.73, 95% CI -4.53 to -0.93; I2 = 0, moderate-quality evidence) compared with continuing on antidepressant monotherapy. However, a greater number of participants dropped out when antidepressant monotherapy was augmented with an antipsychotic (cariprazine RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.41; quetiapine RR 1.57, 95% CI: 1.14 to 2.17; ziprasidone RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.55) compared with antidepressant monotherapy, although estimates for olanzapine augmentation were imprecise (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.69). Dropout rates ranged from 10% to 39% in the groups augmented with an antipsychotic, and from 12% to 23% in the comparison groups. The most common reasons for dropping out were side effects or adverse events. We also summarised data about response and remission rates (based on changes in depressive symptoms) for included studies, along with data on social adjustment and social functioning, quality of life, economic outcomes and adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A small body of evidence shows that augmenting current antidepressant therapy with mianserin or with an antipsychotic (cariprazine, olanzapine, quetiapine or ziprasidone) improves depressive symptoms over the short-term (8 to 12 weeks). However, this evidence is mostly of low or moderate quality due to imprecision of the estimates of effects. Improvements with antipsychotics need to be balanced against the increased likelihood of dropping out of treatment or experiencing an adverse event. Augmentation of current antidepressant therapy with a second antidepressant, mirtazapine, does not produce a clinically important benefit in reduction of depressive symptoms (high-quality evidence). The evidence regarding the effects of augmenting current antidepressant therapy with buspirone or switching current antidepressant treatment to mianserin is currently insufficient. Further trials are needed to increase the certainty of these findings and to examine long-term effects of treatment, as well as the effectiveness of other pharmacological treatment strategies.

Results from a long-term open-label extension study of adjunctive buprenorphine/samidorphan combination in patients with major depressive disorder

Buprenorphine/samidorphan (BUP/SAM; ALKS 5461) is an investigational opioid system modulator for the adjunctive treatment of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), who did not respond adequately to prior antidepressant therapy (ADT). FORWARD-2, an open-label extension study, assessed long-term safety and tolerability of adjunctive BUP/SAM treatment in these patients. Patients from four short-term trials and de novo patients were enrolled; all had confirmed MDD and a current major depressive episode lasting 2-24 months. Patients were treated with an established ADT for ≥8 weeks before receiving sublingual, adjunctive BUP/SAM 2 mg/2 mg for up to 52 weeks. Safety (primary objective) was assessed via adverse events (AEs), the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale, and the Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS). Exploratory evaluation of efficacy was done using the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Of 1485 patients, 50% completed the study and 11% discontinued due to AEs. AEs of nausea, headache, constipation, dizziness, and somnolence, each occurred in ≥10% of patients. There was no evidence of increased suicidal ideation or behavior. Euphoria-related AEs were uncommon (1.2%). Following abrupt BUP/SAM discontinuation, "drug withdrawal" AEs were infrequent (0.4%), and the incidence of COWS categorical worsening after abrupt drug discontinuation was low (6.5%). Improvements in mean MADRS scores were maintained until study end, suggesting durability of antidepressant effect in patients continuing treatment. BUP/SAM was generally well tolerated, with a low risk of abuse and an AE profile consistent with those seen in placebo-controlled studies. Withdrawal reports were uncommon and of limited clinical impact.

The Potential Utility of Aripiprazole Augmentation for Major Depressive Disorder with Mixed Features Specifier: A Retrospective Study

Objective

The present study aimed to observe potential benefit of aripiprazole augmentation in the treatment of major depressive disorder with mixed specifier (MDDM) in naturalistic treatment setting.

Methods

Data were collected from MDDM patients using a retrospective chart review for 8 weeks (week –8 and week 0) in routine practice. All patients were on current antidepressants upon starting of aripiprazole. Patients were treated without restriction of doses of aripiprazole. The primary endpoint was the mean change of Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total scores along with various secondary endpoint measures.

Results

In total 38 patients were analyzed. The changes of MADRS, Clinical Global Impression (CGI)-severity, Young Mania Rating Scale, Sheehan Disability Scale, and CGI-clinical benefit total scores from baseline to the endpoint were −7.1, −0.8, −4.9, −4.1, and −3.6, respectively (all p < 0.0001). At the endpoint, the responder and remitter rates by MADRS score criteria were approximately 32% and 21%, respectively.

Conclusion

The present findings have clearly shown the effectiveness and tolerability of aripiprazole augmentation for MDDM patients in routine practice. The present study warrants subsequent, adequately-powered, well-controlled studies for generalizability near future.

The impact of depression medications on oral antidiabetic drug adherence in patients with diabetes and depression

AIMS

To compare adherence and persistence to oral antidiabetic drugs (OAD) between patients who are new users of second generation antipsychotics (SGA) versus new users of other depression therapies in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHODS

Adults 18-64 years with previously-treated T2DM and MDD (past OAD and SSRI/SNRI use) who are new users of SGA or non-SGA therapies (bupropion, lithium, mirtazapine, thyroid hormone, tricyclic antidepressant) were identified in the 2009-2015 MarketScan® Commercial Claims and Encounters database. Multivariate regression models were used to determine the odds of a ≥10% decline in OAD adherence over 180- and 365-days, and time to OAD discontinuation, adjusting for differences between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 8664 (21.5% SGA), 8311 (22.1% SGA), and 17,524 (21.3% SGA) patients met inclusion criteria for the 180-day adherence, 365-day adherence, and persistence cohorts, respectively. Over 180-days, 16.6% of SGA and 13.3% of non-SGA initiators had a ≥10% decline in OAD adherence (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 1.41, 95% CI 1.21-1.63). Over 365-days, 22.3% of SGA and 18.9% of non-SGA initiators had a ≥ 10% decline (OR = 1.34, 95% CI 1.17-1.53). Time to OAD discontinuation was similar between groups (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.03, 95% CI 0.94-1.12).

CONCLUSION

Use of SGA was associated with a 1.3-1.4 times higher odds of a ≥10% decline in OAD adherence. Adherence to OAD is critical for optimal diabetes control and reductions in this magnitude may impact A1C. Close monitoring of OAD adherence after SGA initiation is warranted.

Meta-analysis and review of dopamine agonists in acute episodes of mood disorder: Efficacy and safety

The objective of this meta-analysis is to assess the efficacy and safety of partial and complete dopamine agonists in the treatment of acute mood disorder episodes. Randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled trials of dopamine agonists in the treatment of acute mood disorder episodes were identified in the MEDLINE and PsycINFO databases and included in the meta-analysis. In monotherapy of mania, improved remission rates were found for cariprazine (odds ratio (OR): 2.08, P < 0.01) and for high-dose aripiprazole (OR: 3.00; P = 0.05), but not for low-dose aripiprazole. In bipolar depression, no improvement of remission and response rates was found for aripiprazole in monotherapy, whereas improved response rate (OR: 10.27, P < 0.01) was found for pramipexole only as an add-on to another mood stabilizer. In major depressive disorder, relatively similar improvements of remission rates were found for high-dose (OR: 1.96, p < 0.01) and low-dose aripiprazole (OR: 1.68, P = 0.01), as well as brexpiprazole (OR: 1.52, P = 0.05) as an add-on to antidepressant medication. Our meta-analysis shows that partial dopamine agonists at high doses are effective in treating acute mania. In major depressive disorder, which is resistant to classical antidepressants, low doses of partial dopamine agonists as adjunct therapy may represent a relatively safe and effective alternative.

Fatigue in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder: Prevalence, Burden and Pharmacological Approaches to Management

Fatigue is a frequently reported symptom in major depressive disorder, occurring in over 90% of patients. Clinical presentations of fatigue within major depressive disorder encompass overlapping physical, cognitive and emotional aspects. While this review addresses the epidemiology, burden, functional impact and management of fatigue in major depressive disorder, the main focus is on available pharmacotherapy options and their comparative efficacies. Our review of the effects of pharmacological treatments on fatigue in major depressive disorder found that medications with dopaminergic and/or noradrenergic action such as modafinil, flupenthixol and atomoxetine were most effective in improving symptoms of fatigue and low energy. However, significant variation across studies in assessment tools and study inclusion/exclusion criteria may have contributed to inconsistent findings. The efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions is also discussed, including light therapy and exercise.

Effect of Antidepressant Switching vs Augmentation on Remission Among Patients With Major Depressive Disorder Unresponsive to Antidepressant Treatment: The VAST-D Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Less than one-third of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) achieve remission with their first antidepressant.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the relative effectiveness and safety of 3 common alternate treatments for MDD.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

From December 2012 to May 2015, 1522 patients at 35 US Veterans Health Administration medical centers who were diagnosed with nonpsychotic MDD, unresponsive to at least 1 antidepressant course meeting minimal standards for treatment dose and duration, participated in the study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to 1 of 3 treatments and evaluated for up to 36 weeks.

INTERVENTIONS

Switch to a different antidepressant, bupropion (switch group, n = 511); augment current treatment with bupropion (augment-bupropion group, n = 506); or augment with an atypical antipsychotic, aripiprazole (augment-aripiprazole group, n = 505) for 12 weeks (acute treatment phase) and up to 36 weeks for longer-term follow-up (continuation phase).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was remission during the acute treatment phase (16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Clinician Rated [QIDS-C16] score ≤5 at 2 consecutive visits). Secondary outcomes included response (≥50% reduction in QIDS-C16 score or improvement on the Clinical Global Impression Improvement scale), relapse, and adverse effects.

RESULTS

Among 1522 randomized patients (mean age, 54.4 years; men, 1296 [85.2%]), 1137 (74.7%) completed the acute treatment phase. Remission rates at 12 weeks were 22.3% (n = 114) for the switch group, 26.9% (n = 136)for the augment-bupropion group, and 28.9% (n = 146) for the augment-aripiprazole group. The augment-aripiprazole group exceeded the switch group in remission (relative risk [RR], 1.30 [95% CI, 1.05-1.60]; P = .02), but other remission comparisons were not significant. Response was greater for the augment-aripiprazole group (74.3%) than for either the switch group (62.4%; RR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.09-1.29]) or the augment-bupropion group (65.6%; RR, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.04-1.23]). No significant treatment differences were observed for relapse. Anxiety was more frequent in the 2 bupropion groups (24.3% in the switch group [n = 124] vs 16.6% in the augment-aripiprazole group [n = 84]; and 22.5% in augment-bupropion group [n = 114]). Adverse effects more frequent in the augment-aripiprazole group included somnolence, akathisia, and weight gain.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among a predominantly male population with major depressive disorder unresponsive to antidepressant treatment, augmentation with aripiprazole resulted in a statistically significant but only modestly increased likelihood of remission during 12 weeks of treatment compared with switching to bupropion monotherapy. Given the small effect size and adverse effects associated with aripiprazole, further analysis including cost-effectiveness is needed to understand the net utility of this approach.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01421342.

Second Generation Antipsychotics in the Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder: An Update

Less than one third of patients who suffer from major depressive disorder (MDD) report remission following antidepressant treatments requiring more diverse treatment approaches. Augmentation of second generation antipsychotics (SGAs) has been increasingly recognized as an important treatment option. The authors have previously provided a comprehensive review of SGAs for the treatment of MDD in 2013. Since then, numerous additional clinical trials have been conducted to investigate diverse issues regarding the utility of SGAs in MDD. Moreover, a new SGA, brexpiprazole, was recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration in July 2015 for the treatment of MDD as an augmentation agent to antidepressants. Thus, the aim of this study was to provide a concise update of all the available SGAs for the treatment of MDD, in particular on the additional clinical trials which have been published since 2013.

Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) 2016 Clinical Guidelines for the Management of Adults with Major Depressive Disorder: Section 3. Pharmacological Treatments

BACKGROUND

The Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) conducted a revision of the 2009 guidelines by updating the evidence and recommendations. The scope of the 2016 guidelines remains the management of major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults, with a target audience of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals.

METHODS

Using the question-answer format, we conducted a systematic literature search focusing on systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Evidence was graded using CANMAT-defined criteria for level of evidence. Recommendations for lines of treatment were based on the quality of evidence and clinical expert consensus. "Pharmacological Treatments" is the third of six sections of the 2016 guidelines. With little new information on older medications, treatment recommendations focus on second-generation antidepressants.

RESULTS

Evidence-informed responses are given for 21 questions under 4 broad categories: 1) principles of pharmacological management, including individualized assessment of patient and medication factors for antidepressant selection, regular and frequent monitoring, and assessing clinical and functional outcomes with measurement-based care; 2) comparative aspects of antidepressant medications based on efficacy, tolerability, and safety, including summaries of newly approved drugs since 2009; 3) practical approaches to pharmacological management, including drug-drug interactions and maintenance recommendations; and 4) managing inadequate response and treatment resistance, with a focus on switching antidepressants, applying adjunctive treatments, and new and emerging agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence-based pharmacological treatments are available for first-line treatment of MDD and for management of inadequate response. However, given the limitations of the evidence base, pharmacological management of MDD still depends on tailoring treatments to the patient.

Treating to target in major depressive disorder: response to remission to functional recovery

Treating to target in chronic diseases [e.g. Major Depressive Disorder (MDD)] fosters precision, consistency, and appropriateness of treatment selection and sequencing. Therapeutic target definitions/endpoints in MDD should satisfy patient-, provider-, and societal expectations. Functional recovery in depression and return to both physical and mental health are the overarching therapeutic objectives. Treating to target in MDD implies multidimensional symptomatic remission, with a particular emphasis on cognitive function and aspects of positive mental health. Several atypical antipsychotic agents (i.e. brexpiprazole, aripiprazole, quetiapine) are FDA-approved as augmentation agents in MDD. Vortioxetine, duloxetine, and psychostimulants have evidence of independent, direct, and robust effects on cognitive function in MDD. Vortioxetine is the only agent that demonstrates efficacy across multiple cognitive domains in MDD associated with functional recovery. Measurement-based care, health information technology/systems, and integrated care models (e.g. medical homes) provide requisite tools and health environments for optimal health outcomes in MDD. Achieving remission in MDD does not equate to health. Return to positive mental health as well as full functioning provide the impetus to pivot away from traditional provider-defined outcomes toward an inclusive perspective involving patient- and society-defined outcomes (i.e. optimization of human capital). As in other chronic diseases, treating to target (e.g. cognitive function) further increases the probability of achieving optimal health outcomes.

Optimizing the Use of Aripiprazole Augmentation in the Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder: From Clinical Trials to Clinical Practice

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a recurrent, chronic, and devastating disorder leading to serious impairment in functional capacity as well as increasing public health care costs. In the previous decade, switching therapy and dose adjustment of ongoing antidepressants was the most frequently chosen subsequent treatment option for MDD. However, such recommendations were not based on firmly proven efficacy data from well-designed, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) but on practical grounds and clinical reasoning. Aripiprazole augmentation has been dramatically increasing in clinical practice owing to its unique action mechanisms as well as proven efficacy and safety from adequately powered and well-controlled RCTs. Despite the increased use of aripiprazole in depression, limited clinical information and knowledge interfere with proper and efficient use of aripiprazole augmentation for MDD. The objective of the present review was to enhance clinicians' current understanding of aripiprazole augmentation and how to optimize the use of this therapy in the treatment of MDD.