Extended-release quetiapine fumarate (quetiapine XR) as adjunctive therapy in major depressive disorder (MDD) in patients with an inadequate response to ongoing antidepressant treatment: a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Role of adjunctive cariprazine for treatment-resistant depression in patients with major depressive disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Cariprazine is an orally active dopamine D3-preferring D3/D2 receptor and serotonin 5-HT1A receptor partial agonist, being considered as a treatment for refractory MDD. Therefore, we aim to perform the first meta-analysis of current literature, to collate changes in depression from baseline and assess tolerability of adjunctive cariprazine in MDD populace.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, ClinicalTrials.Gov, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception till 1st September 2023. RCTs of adult patients with refractory MDD under adjunctive cariprazine vs. placebo were included. Primary outcomes included improvement in MADRS, CGI-S, and HAM-D 17 scores. Secondary outcomes included treatment-emergent adverse events. The statistical analysis was performed using generic inverse variance with random-effects model. The overall risk ratios (RR) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of five RCTs were analysed, enrolling 2013 participants (cariprazine: 959 participants, Placebo: 1054). Supplementation of ADT with cariprazine demonstrated a significant improvement in MADRAS, CGI-S and HAMD-17 scores from baseline (LSMD: -1.88, 95% CI [-2.94, -0.83], p=0.0005), (LSMD: -0.18, 95% CI [-0.29, -0.07], p=0.002), and (LSMD: -0.96, 95% CI [-1.70, -0.21], p=0.01) respectively. Treatment with adjunctive cariprazine therapy demonstrated significantly increased incidence of akathisia, nausea, dizziness, fatigue, restlessness, somnolence, and tremors when compared with placebo.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis provides evidence supporting the efficacy of adjunctive cariprazine in patients with refractory MDD. However, it is essential to consider the safety profile of cariprazine, particularly the increased risk of adverse events. The vigilant monitoring and management of these side effects should be integrated into clinical practice to minimize discontinuation rates and optimize patient outcomes.

A Meta-Analysis of the Antidepressant Responses in Pivotal Trials on Esketamine Nasal Spray and Atypical Antipsychotics

Purpose

This meta-analysis assessed whether atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) and esketamine nasal spray (ESK-NS), which are mechanistically distinct, differ in antidepressant outcomes.

Patients and Methods

Data were extracted from 12 trials of ESK-NS or AAPs in depressed patients (4276) with inadequate response or resistance to conventional antidepressants. Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score reductions from baseline and response rates (≥50% reduction) were analyzed.

Results

At endpoint, the estimated MADRS score reduction of pooled ESK-NS arms was greater than pooled AAP arms (+9.16 points, p < 0.0001). The reduction also was greater in the pooled control arms of the ESK-NS trials than the pooled control arms of the AAP trials (+7.57 points, p < 0.0001). The mean difference in the reductions between pooled ESK-NS and control arms was 1.87 points greater than that between pooled AAP and control arms, but this difference was not significant (95% CI: -4.49, 0.74, p = 0.16). Relative to their respective control arms, the mean difference in response rates was 25% for the pooled ESK-NS and 9% for the pooled AAP arms; the mean response rate was 16% greater in the pooled ESK-NS studies than the pooled AAP studies (p = 0.0004). Comparisons against specific AAPs showed mean differences in the MADRS score reductions at 1 week between the experimental and control arms that were numerically larger in the ESK-NS trials than in the aripiprazole trials (mean difference of 1.71 points, p = 0.06) and the brexpiprazole trials (mean difference of 2.05 points, p = 0.02).

Conclusion

The ESK-NS arms showed numerically larger MADRS score reductions at week-1 and endpoint, and a significantly larger response rate compared with AAP arms. Prospective studies involving direct comparisons are warranted to compare the relative efficacy between these treatment regimens.

Esketamine Nasal Spray versus Quetiapine for Treatment-Resistant Depression

BACKGROUND

In treatment-resistant depression, commonly defined as a lack of response to two or more consecutive treatments during the current depressive episode, the percentage of patients with remission is low and the percentage with relapse is high. The efficacy and safety of esketamine nasal spray as compared with extended-release quetiapine augmentation therapy, both in combination with ongoing treatment with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) or a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), in patients with treatment-resistant depression are unknown.

METHODS

In an open-label, single-blind (with raters unaware of group assignments), multicenter, phase 3b, randomized, active-controlled trial, we assigned patients, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive flexible doses (according to the summary of product characteristics) of esketamine nasal spray (esketamine group) or extended-release quetiapine (quetiapine group), both in combination with an SSRI or SNRI. The primary end point was remission, defined as a score of 10 or less on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), at week 8 (scores range from 0 to 60, with higher scores indicating more severe depression). The key secondary end point was no relapse through week 32 after remission at week 8. All patients were included in the analysis; patients who discontinued the trial treatment were considered as having had an unfavorable outcome (i.e., they were grouped with patients who did not have remission or who had a relapse). Analyses of the primary and key secondary end points were adjusted for age and number of treatment failures.

RESULTS

Overall, 336 patients were assigned to the esketamine group and 340 to the quetiapine group. More patients in the esketamine group than in the quetiapine group had remission at week 8 (91 of 336 patients [27.1%] vs. 60 of 340 patients [17.6%]; P = 0.003) and had no relapse through week 32 after remission at week 8 (73 of 336 patients [21.7%] vs. 48 of 340 patients [14.1%]). Over 32 weeks of follow-up, the percentage of patients with remission, the percentage of patients with a treatment response, and the change in the MADRS score from baseline favored esketamine nasal spray. The adverse events were consistent with the established safety profiles of the trial treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with treatment-resistant depression, esketamine nasal spray plus an SSRI or SNRI was superior to extended-release quetiapine plus an SSRI or SNRI with respect to remission at week 8. (Funded by Janssen EMEA; ESCAPE-TRD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04338321.).

Treatment-resistant depression: definition, prevalence, detection, management, and investigational interventions

Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is common and associated with multiple serious public health implications. A consensus definition of TRD with demonstrated predictive utility in terms of clinical decision-making and health outcomes does not currently exist. Instead, a plethora of definitions have been proposed, which vary significantly in their conceptual framework. The absence of a consensus definition hampers precise estimates of the prevalence of TRD, and also belies efforts to identify risk factors, prevention opportunities, and effective interventions. In addition, it results in heterogeneity in clinical practice decision-making, adversely affecting quality of care. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) have adopted the most used definition of TRD (i.e., inadequate response to a minimum of two antidepressants despite adequacy of the treatment trial and adherence to treatment). It is currently estimated that at least 30% of persons with depression meet this definition. A significant percentage of persons with TRD are actually pseudo-resistant (e.g., due to inadequacy of treatment trials or non-adherence to treatment). Although multiple sociodemographic, clinical, treatment and contextual factors are known to negatively moderate response in persons with depression, very few factors are regarded as predictive of non-response across multiple modalities of treatment. Intravenous ketamine and intranasal esketamine (co-administered with an antidepressant) are established as efficacious in the management of TRD. Some second-generation antipsychotics (e.g., aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, cariprazine, quetiapine XR) are proven effective as adjunctive treatments to antidepressants in partial responders, but only the olanzapine-fluoxetine combination has been studied in FDA-defined TRD. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is established as effective and FDA-approved for individuals with TRD, with accelerated theta-burst TMS also recently showing efficacy. Electroconvulsive therapy is regarded as an effective acute and maintenance intervention in TRD, with preliminary evidence suggesting non-inferiority to acute intravenous ketamine. Evidence for extending antidepressant trial, medication switching and combining antidepressants is mixed. Manual-based psychotherapies are not established as efficacious on their own in TRD, but offer significant symptomatic relief when added to conventional antidepressants. Digital therapeutics are under study and represent a potential future clinical vista in this population.

Importance of achieving rapid treatment response in major depressive disorder

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a leading contributor to disability worldwide and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Current pharmacologic treatment options may be ineffective for some patients and can pose several limitations and challenges, including suboptimal response and slow onset of action. Many of these therapies can take 6 to 8 weeks for patients to achieve response and 12 weeks or longer to demonstrate full clinical benefit. Delays in depressive symptom resolution are associated with poor symptomatic and functional outcomes, decreased quality of life, and increased burden on the healthcare system. Achieving response and remission of symptoms soon after diagnosis and treatment is associated with lower rates of relapse and a greater likelihood of functional recovery. An unmet need exists for innovative treatments that offer rapid and sustained effects. This editorial discusses the benefits of rapid improvement in depressive symptoms with available and investigational agents for patients with MDD.

Comparative efficacy and safety of 4 atypical antipsychotics augmentation treatment for major depressive disorder in adults: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Atypical antipsychotic (AAP) augmentation is an alternative strategy for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who had an inadequate response to antidepressant therapy (ADT). We aimed to compare and rank the efficacy and safety of 4 AAPs in the adjuvant treatment of MDD.

METHODS

We searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published and unpublished from the date of databases and clinical trial websites inception to April 30, 2023. The evidence risk of bias (RoB) and certainty are assessed using the Cochrane bias risk tool and grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) framework, respectively. Using network meta-analysis, we estimated summary risk ratios (RRs) or standardized mean difference (SMD) based on the random effects model.

RESULTS

56 eligible studies comprising 11448 participants were included. In terms of primary efficacy outcome, compared with placebo (PBO), all AAPs had significant efficacy (SMD = -0.40; 95% CI, -0.68 to -0.12 for quetiapine (QTP); -0.35, -0.59 to -0.11 for olanzapine (OLA); -0.28, -0.47 to -0.09 for aripiprazole (ARI) and -0.25, -0.42 to -0.07 for brexpiprazole (BRE), respectively). In terms of acceptability, no significant difference was found, either agents versus agents or agents versus PBO. In terms of tolerability, compared with the PBO, QTP (RR = 0.24; 95% CI,0.11-0.53), OLA (0.30,0.10-0.55), ARI (0.39,0.22-0.69), and BRE (0.37,0.18-0.75) were significantly less well tolerated. 8 (14.2%) of 56 trials were assessed as low RoB, 38 (67.9%) trials had moderate RoB, and 10 (17.9%) had high RoB; By the GRADE, the certainty of most evidence was low or very low.

CONCLUSION

Adjuvant AAPs had significant efficacy compared with PBO, but treatment decisions must be made to balance the risks and benefits.

Predicting plasma concentration of quetiapine in patients with depression using machine learning techniques based on real-world evidence

OBJECTIVES

We develop a model for predicting quetiapine levels in patients with depression, using machine learning to support decisions on clinical regimens.

METHODS

Inpatients diagnosed with depression at the First Hospital of Hebei Medical University from 1 November 2019, to 31 August were enrolled. The ratio of training cohort to testing cohort was fixed at 80%:20% for the whole dataset. Univariate analysis was executed on all information to screen the important variables influencing quetiapine TDM. The prediction abilities of nine machine learning and deep learning algorithms were compared. The prediction model was created using an algorithm with better model performance, and the model's interpretation was done using the SHapley Additive exPlanation.

RESULTS

There were 333 individuals and 412 cases of quetiapine TDM included in the study. Six significant variables were selected to establish the individualized medication model. A quetiapine concentration prediction model was created through CatBoost. In the testing cohort, the projected TDM's accuracy was 61.45%. The prediction accuracy of quetiapine concentration within the effective range (200-750 ng/mL) was 75.47%.

CONCLUSIONS

This study predicts the plasma concentration of quetiapine in depression patients by machine learning, which is meaningful for the clinical medication guidance.

Pharmacotherapy for Treatment-Resistant Depression: Antidepressants and Atypical Antipsychotics

Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) affects one in three patients with major depressive disorder and is associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality. Studies of real-world practices suggest that antidepressant monotherapy continues to be the most widely used treatment after inadequate response to a first-line treatment. However, rates of remission with antidepressants in TRD are suboptimal. Atypical antipsychotics are the most widely studied augmentation agent and aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, cariprazine, quetiapine extended-release, and olanzapine-fluoxetine combination are approved for depression. Benefits of using atypical antipsychotics for TRD has to be weighted against their potential adverse events, such as weight gain, akathisia, and tardive dyskinesia.

Pharmacotherapies for Treatment-Resistant Depression: How Antipsychotics Fit in the Rapidly Evolving Therapeutic Landscape

One in three adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) do not experience clinically significant improvement after multiple sequential courses of antidepressants and have treatment-resistant depression (TRD). The presence of TRD contributes to the morbidity and excess mortality associated with MDD and has been linked to significantly increased health care expenses. In the absence of a consensus definition of TRD, this report takes a broad approach by considering inadequate response to one or more courses of antidepressants and focuses on atypical antipsychotics that are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treatment of depression (aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, cariprazine, extended-release quetiapine, and olanzapine-fluoxetine combination). While multiple acute-phase studies have demonstrated the efficacy of these medications in improving depressive symptoms, clinically meaningful improvement (i.e., remission) remains limited, with significant concerns about side effects (including weight gain, metabolic dysfunction, extrapyramidal symptoms, and tardive dyskinesia), especially with long-term use. With the rapidly evolving landscape of antidepressant treatments over the past few years, which has witnessed approval of rapid-acting antidepressants (e.g., esketamine nasal spray and dextromethorphan-bupropion combination) and several more in the late-stage pipeline (e.g., zuranolone and psilocybin), it remains to be seen whether the use of atypical antipsychotics will go the way of the older and rarely prescribed antidepressants (such as tricyclics and monoamine oxidase inhibitors). Pragmatic clinical trials are needed to compare the effectiveness of atypical antipsychotics with TRD-specific pharmacotherapies and neuromodulation treatments and to identify the optimal sequencing of these varied approaches for patients with MDD. When using atypical antipsychotics, clinicians and patients are encouraged to use a shared decision-making approach by personalizing treatment selection based on anticipated side effects, tolerability, cost, and feasibility.

Effects of quetiapine on sleep: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials

Quetiapine is a common off-label antipsychotic drug for treating insomnia. Its effects in different disease conditions and dosages remain unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in clinical trials examining the efficacy of low-dose quetiapine in sleep. We obtained 21 clinical trials. Mean difference (MD), standard mean difference (SMD), and odds ratio (OR) were used to estimate the effect sizes using a random-effects model. The pooled results showed that quetiapine improved sleep quality compared with placebo (SMD: -0.57 [95%CI: -0.75, -0.4]). The SMD of sleep quality was correlated with age (coefficient: -0.0174) and sex (coefficient: -0.012). The significant effects were observed in the general anxiety disorder (SMD: -0.59 [95%CI: -0.92, -0.27]), major depressive disorder (SMD: -0.47 [95%CI: -0.66, -0.28]), and healthy (SMD: -1.33, [95%CI [-2.12, -0.54]) subgroups, at the dosage of 50 mg (SMD: -0.36 [95%CI: -0.36, -0.11]), 150 mg (SMD: -0.4 [95%CI: -0.52, -0.29]), and 300 mg (SMD: -0.17 [95%CI: -0.31,-0.04]). Quetiapine increased total sleep time compared with placebo (MD: 47.91 [95%CI: 28.06, 67.76]) but not when compared with other psychiatric drugs (MD: -4.19 [95%CI: -19.43, 11.05]). Adverse events (AEs) and discontinuation due to AEs were common among the quetiapine users. Quetiapine is effective as a sleep-helping drug. Precaution is suggested when interpreting the results on the elderly due to the high heterogeneity caused by incorporating patients over 66 years in the meta-analyses. We recommend an initial dosage of 50-150 mg/day with priority consideration for the elderly with GAD or MDD while monitoring its potential AEs.

Recent advances in dopamine D2 receptor ligands in the treatment of neuropsychiatric disorders

Dopamine is a biologically active amine synthesized in the central and peripheral nervous system. This biogenic monoamine acts by activating five types of dopamine receptors (D_1-5 Rs), which belong to the G protein-coupled receptor family. Antagonists and partial agonists of D₂ Rs are used to treat schizophrenia, Parkinson's disease, depression, and anxiety. The typical pharmacophore with high D₂ R affinity comprises four main areas, namely aromatic moiety, cyclic amine, central linker and aromatic/heteroaromatic lipophilic fragment. From the literature reviewed herein, we can conclude that 4-(2,3-dichlorophenyl), 4-(2-methoxyphenyl)-, 4-(benzo[b]thiophen-4-yl)-1-substituted piperazine, and 4-(6-fluorobenzo[d]isoxazol-3-yl)piperidine moieties are critical for high D₂ R affinity. Four to six atoms chains are optimal for D₂ R affinity with 4-butoxyl as the most pronounced one. The bicyclic aromatic/heteroaromatic systems are most frequently occurring as lipophilic appendages to retain high D₂ R affinity. In this review, we provide a thorough overview of the therapeutic potential of D₂ R modulators in the treatment of the aforementioned disorders. In addition, this review summarizes current knowledge about these diseases, with a focus on the dopaminergic pathway underlying these pathologies. Major attention is paid to the structure, function, and pharmacology of novel D₂ R ligands, which have been developed in the last decade (2010-2021), and belong to the 1,4-disubstituted aromatic cyclic amine group. Due to the abundance of data, allosteric D₂ R ligands and D₂ R modulators from patents are not discussed in this review.

Patient perspectives of lithium and quetiapine augmentation treatment in treatment-resistant depression: A qualitative assessment

BACKGROUND

Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) has a profound cost to patients and healthcare services worldwide. Pharmacological augmentation is one therapeutic option for TRD, with lithium and quetiapine currently recommended as first-line agents. Patient opinions about pharmacological augmentation may affect treatment outcomes, yet these have not been systematically explored.

AIMS

This study aimed to qualitatively assess patient experiences of lithium and quetiapine augmentation.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 32 patients from the ongoing lithium versus quetiapine open-label trial comparing these augmentation agents in patients with TRD. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and a thematic analysis was used to assess patient opinions of each agent.

RESULTS

Four main themes were generated from the thematic analysis: 'Initial concerns', 'Experience of side effects', 'Perception of treatment efficacy' and 'Positive perception of treatment monitoring'. Patient accounts indicated a predominantly positive experience of lithium and quetiapine augmentation. Greater apprehension about side effects was reported for lithium prior to treatment initiation, but greater experience of negative side effects was reported for quetiapine. Clinical monitoring was perceived positively.

CONCLUSION

Patient accounts suggested treatment augmentation with lithium or quetiapine was acceptable and helpful for most patients. However, anticipation and experiences of adverse side effects may prevent some patients from benefitting from these treatments.

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.

Evaluation of Individual Items of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) in Adults with Treatment-Resistant Depression Treated with Esketamine Nasal Spray Combined with a New Oral Antidepressant

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine which symptoms measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) improve in those treated with esketamine nasal spray in combination with oral antidepressant (AD) compared with those treated with placebo plus AD for adult patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). These results complement the interpretation of PHQ-9 and MADRS total scores.

METHODS

The TRANSFORM 2 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of esketamine nasal spray in combination with AD. This post-hoc analysis used PHQ-9 and MADRS data to evaluate symptom changes. The total scores change and proportions of individual item change scores on the PHQ-9 and MADRS were evaluated at days 15 and 28; analysis of variance was used to test differences on total scores. Generalized estimation equations of logistic regression models were used to estimate the likelihood of improvement on instrument items.

RESULTS

The mean total score reduction of the PHQ-9, indicating improvement, was greater in the esketamine plus AD arm compared with placebo plus AD at day 15 (- 1.8; p = 0.045) and day 28 (- 2.8; p = 0.006). Proportions of those who improved (≥ 1 point on a 4-point scale and ≥ 2 points on a 7-point scale for the PHQ-9 and MADRS, respectively) was greater in the esketamine plus AD group compared with the placebo plus AD group across all items. The odds of improving for those in the esketamine plus AD group compared with the placebo plus AD group were over two times greater on the PHQ-9 items: "Little interest/pleasure in things" (OR 2.252, 95% CI 1.165-4.355); "Feeling down, depressed, or hopeless" (OR 2.767, 95% CI 1.400-5.470); and "Feeling tired or having little energy" (OR 2.171, 95% CI 1.153-4.087). The mean reduction in total scores on the MADRS, indicating improvement, was numerically greater at day 15 (- 2.0; p = 0.189) and statistically significantly greater at day 28 (- 4.4; p = 0.017) in the esketamine plus AD arm compared with placebo plus AD. The odds of improving for those in the esketamine plus AD group compared with the placebo plus AD group were over two times greater on the MADRS items measuring "Apparent sadness" (OR 2.007, 95% CI 1.096-3.674); and "Inability to feel" (OR 2.099, 95% CI 1.180-3.735).

CONCLUSION

Improvement in mean total scores in those treated with esketamine plus AD compared with placebo plus AD are important results to confirm efficacy. The odds of improving in those treated with esketamine plus AD was at least two times greater than with placebo plus AD on three patient- and two clinician-reported individual symptoms of TRD. These findings provide patient-relevant quantification of the esketamine plus AD treatment benefit, adding understanding as to which symptoms are most improved with treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02418585; first posted 16 April 2015.

Can Quetiapine Prolong the Antidepressant Effect of Ketamine?: A 5-Year Follow-up Study

PURPOSE

Ketamine, a noncompetitive, high-affinity antagonist of the N-methyl-d-aspartate-type glutamate receptor, has a rapid effect in patients with treatment-resistant disorder, but many patients who respond to intravenous ketamine relapse within several days. The objective of this study was to examine the long-term outcome of patients' mood 5 years after ketamine treatment.

METHODS

Sixteen electroconvulsive therapy referrals received at least 1 intravenous ketamine treatment in addition to their stable antidepressant medications. Depression was evaluated using the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Clinician-Rated, Hamilton Rating Scales for Depression, and Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale. Anxiety was measured using the Hamilton Rating Scale.

RESULTS

Of 16 patients treated, 6 achieved complete remission, 3 partially responded, and 7 did not respond. At baseline, all patients were treated with antidepressants, 14 patients were also treated with neuroleptics, of whom 5 patients were treated with quetiapine. The time to relapse in the 5 patients taking quetiapine was significantly longer than in patients who were taking other neuroleptics (965.83 ± 824.68 vs 80.5 ± 114.3, Z = 7.001, P = 0.0001). At the 5-year follow-up, 3 of the patients taking quetiapine maintained their remission. Overall levels of depression and anxiety at all times were improved in comparison to baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

Our follow-up results suggest that the combination of quetiapine and ketamine can prolong time to relapse after ketamine treatment in patients with treatment-resistant disorder.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Combination Treatments for Major Depression: Antidepressants plus Second-Generation Antipsychotics vs. Esketamine vs. Lithium

BACKGROUND

Successful treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) can be challenging, and failures ("treatment-resistant depression" [TRD]) are frequent. Steps to address TRD include increasing antidepressant dose, combining antidepressants, adding adjunctive agents, or using nonpharmacological treatments. Their relative efficacy and tolerability remain inadequately tested. In particular, the value and safety of increasingly employed second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) and new esketamine, compared to lithium as antidepressant adjuncts remain unclear.

METHODS

We reviewed randomized, placebo-controlled trials and used random-effects meta-analysis to compare odds ratio (OR) versus placebo, as well as numbers-needed-to-treat (NNT) and to-harm (NNH), for adding SGAs, esketamine, or lithium to antidepressants for major depressive episodes.

RESULTS

Analyses involved 49 drug-placebo pairs. By NNT, SGAs were more effective than placebo (NNT = 11 [CI: 9-15]); esketamine (7 [5-10]) and lithium (5 [4-10]) were even more effective. Individually, aripiprazole, olanzapine+fluoxetine, risperidone, and ziprasidone all were more effective (all NNT < 10) than quetiapine (NNT = 13), brexpiprazole (16), or cariprazine (16), with overlapping NNT CIs. Risk of adverse effects, as NNH for most-frequently reported effects, among SGAs versus placebo was 5 [4-6] overall, and highest with quetiapine (NNH = 3), lowest with brexpiprazole (19), 5 (4-6) for esketamine, and 9 (5-106) with lithium. The risk/benefit ratio (NNH/NNT) was 1.80 (1.25-10.60) for lithium and much less favorable for esketamine (0.71 [0.60-0.80]) or SGAs (0.45 [0.17-0.77]).

CONCLUSIONS

Several modern antipsychotics and esketamine appeared to be useful adjuncts to antidepressants for acute major depressive episodes, but lithium was somewhat more effective and better tolerated.

LIMITATIONS

Most trials of adding lithium involved older, mainly tricyclic, antidepressants, and the dosing of adjunctive treatments were not optimized.

Quetiapine in the Anxiety Dimension of Mood Disorders: A Systematic Review of the Literature to Support Clinical Practice

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND

Bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder are heterogeneous conditions characterized by marked variations in mood. High levels of anxiety are often present in these conditions and are associated with increased suicidal risk, increased disease duration, and treatment resistance. Mood stabilizers or antipsychotics are recommended for the treatment of bipolar disorder in comorbidity with anxiety disorders. This study examines current knowledge to evaluate the efficacy of quetiapine in the treatment of anxiety in mood disorders.

METHODS/PROCEDURES

A systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Cochrane guidelines, selecting randomized control trials that evaluated the efficacy of quetiapine on anxiety symptoms in patients diagnosed with bipolar disorder or major depressive disorder and included anxiety evaluation scales.

FINDINGS/RESULTS

We collected 27 studies (19 with primary data analysis, 8 with secondary data analysis) regarding the use of quetiapine in mood disorders. Quetiapine was more effective than placebo and active comparators in reducing anxiety in unipolar and bipolar patients in 20 of these studies. In 7 studies, quetiapine was not superior to psychoactive comparators or placebo on the anxiety dimension.

IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS

Statistical power might be limited by small sample size in 5 of the studies included in our review. Moreover, data on anxiety were a secondary outcome in most studies. Nevertheless, the reported studies show with good levels of concordance that quetiapine is effective in controlling anxiety symptoms in patients with mood disorders. This evidence supports current guidelines and recommendations concerning the use of quetiapine in clinical practice.

Augmentation with Atypical Antipsychotics for Treatment-Resistant Depression

BACKGROUND

Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is considered a common clinical condition often associated with relevant suicidal ideation and characterized by a severe functional impairment lifetime. Among the available drugs for the TRD treatment, second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) have been reported as effective. In this context, the aim of this study was to review the clinical studies evaluating the efficacy of SGAs as add-on therapy in TRD.

METHODS

A comprehensive search on PubMed, Medline and PsychINFO of all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing the augmentation with antipsychotics in TRD, published from January 2000 until March 2020, was performed. Sixteen RCTs studies met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

The reviewed studies showed that the add-on therapy with aripiprazole could be beneficial in the treatment of TRD. Furthermore, RCTs on quetiapine augmentation support its use in TRD, especially when comorbid anxiety or insomnia are present. The effects of risperidone and olanzapine as add-on in TRD were less studied, but preliminary data indicated an efficacy respect to placebo, making them a possible therapeutic option in TRD.

LIMITATIONS

The lack of consistency in the definition of TRD together with the small sample sizes and the heterogeneity of antipsychotics dosages used in the reviewed RCTs may have limited the strength of evidences obtained.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the available RCTs studies seem to support the hypothesis that the augmentation with SGAs, in particular aripiprazole and quetiapine, is a valid therapeutic option for TRD. However, to improve the therapeutic outcome of patients with TRD, larger and more homogeneous RCTs are needed.

Antidepressant Augmentation: A Review of the Literature and a Review of the Pharmacoeconomic Considerations

PURPOSE

Antidepressant augmentation strategies for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) are discussed here with an analysis of patient out-of-pocket costs for various medications. The choice of agent ranges from newer atypical antipsychotics (aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, quetiapine) to older agents including buspirone, liothyronine (T3), and lithium. We sought to better understand the differences among these agents to aid in clinical decision making.

METHODS

We conducted a focused review of the support for each of the aforementioned agents in antidepressant augmentation. We then compared the approximate out-of-pocket cost for each medication during a typical augmentation trial using the typical prescription costs on ClinCalc.com derived from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. We calculated the cost to achieve response for one patient with TRD based on the number needed to treat (NNT).

FINDINGS

We observed significant variance in cost to achieve response based on the NNT derived from our review of each of the medications. For example, the overall out-of-pocket cost for one patient to achieve response with aripiprazole (the costliest generic agent) could cover lithium prescriptions for 4 to 5 patients with TRD to achieve response. Although brexpiprazole was estimated separately because of its brand name cost, we estimated that 324 patients receiving lithium could achieve response for same cost of single patient receiving brexpiprazole.

IMPLICATIONS

These findings suggest that among augmentation agents, there are differences in cost that may be highly important in clinical decision making. Other issues of medication monitoring may incur additional costs, and brand name medications offer significantly greater complexity and potential out-of-pocket costs to patients. The use of lithium as a first-line agent for TRD should be considered based on low cost, lowest NNT, and data in support of its efficacy.

Effects of Discontinuation of Drugs Used for Augmentation Therapy on Treatment Outcomes in Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

There has been no consensus on whether and how long add-on drugs for augmentation therapy should be continued in the treatment of depression.

METHODS

Double-blind randomized controlled trials that examined the effects of discontinuation of drugs used for augmentation on treatment outcomes in patients with depression were identified. Meta-analyses were performed to compare rates of study withdrawal due to any reason, study-defined relapse, and adverse events between patients who continued augmentation therapy and those who discontinued it.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included (n=841 for continuing augmentation therapy; n=831 for discontinuing augmentation therapy). The rate of study withdrawal due to any reason was not significantly different between the 2 groups (risk ratio [RR]=0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.69-1.08, p=0.20). Study withdrawal due to relapse was less frequent in the continuation group than in the discontinuation group (RR=0.61, 95% CI=0.40-0.92, p=0.02); however, this statistical significance disappeared when one study using esketamine as augmentation was excluded. Analysis of the data from 5 studies that included a stabilization period before randomization found less frequent relapse in the continuation group than in the discontinuation group (RR=0.47, 95% CI=0.36-0.60, p<0.01). This finding was repeated when the esketamine study was excluded.

DISCUSSION

No firm conclusions could be drawn in light of the small number of studies included. Currently available evidence suggests that add-on drugs, other than esketamine, used for augmentation therapy for depression may be discontinued. This may not be the case for patients who are maintained with augmentation therapy after remission.

Pharmacological Augmentation in Unipolar Depression: A Guide to the Guidelines

BACKGROUND

Pharmacological augmentation is a recommended strategy for patients with treatment-resistant depression. A range of guidelines provide advice on treatment selection, prescription, monitoring and discontinuation, but variation in the content and quality of guidelines may limit the provision of objective, evidence-based care. This is of importance given the side effect burden and poorer long-term outcomes associated with polypharmacy and treatment-resistant depression. This review provides a definitive overview of pharmacological augmentation recommendations by assessing the quality of guidelines for depression and comparing the recommendations made.

METHODS

A systematic literature search identified current treatment guidelines for depression published in English. Guidelines were quality assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. Data relating to the prescription of pharmacological augmenters were extracted from those developed with sufficient rigor, and the included recommendations compared.

RESULTS

Total of 1696 records were identified, 19 guidelines were assessed for quality, and 10 were included. Guidelines differed in their quality, the stage at which augmentation was recommended, the agents included, and the evidence base cited. Lithium and atypical antipsychotics were recommended by all 10, though the specific advice was not consistent. Of the 15 augmenters identified, no others were universally recommended.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides a comprehensive overview of current pharmacological augmentation recommendations for major depression and will support clinicians in selecting appropriate treatment guidance. Although some variation can be accounted for by date of guideline publication, and limited evidence from clinical trials, there is a clear need for greater consistency across guidelines to ensure patients receive consistent evidence-based care.

Quetiapine augmentation of prolonged exposure therapy in veterans with PTSD and a history of mild traumatic brain injury: design and methodology of a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Selective serotonergic reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are first-line pharmacologic treatments for patients with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but must be given over extended period of time before the onset of action. The use of SSRIs in PTSD patients with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) is problematic since SSRIs could exacerbate post-concussion syndrome (PCS) symptoms. VA/DOD guidelines identify trauma-focused psychotherapy as the best evidence-based treatment for PTSD, but overall effectiveness is limited by reduced levels of patient engagement and retention. A previous study from this research group suggested that quetiapine monotherapy, but not risperidone or valproate, could increase engagement in trauma-focused psychotherapy.

METHODS

We report the study protocol of a pilot study funded under the South-Central Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center pilot study program from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. This randomized, open-label study was designed to evaluate the feasibility of completing a randomized trial of quetiapine vs. treatment as usual to promote patient engagement in PTSD patients with a history of mTBI.

DISCUSSION

We expect that the success of this ongoing study should provide us with the preliminary data necessary to design a full-scale randomized trial. Positive efficacy results in a full- scale trial should inform new VA guidelines for clinical practice by showing that quetiapine-related improvements in patient engagement and retention may be the most effective approach to assure that VA resources achieve the best possible outcome for veterans.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04280965 .

Efficacy and safety of TS-121, a novel vasopressin V1B receptor antagonist, as adjunctive treatment for patients with major depressive disorder: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Vasopressin 1B (V_1B) receptor has a pivotal role in the regulation of the hypothalamus-adrenal-pituitary axis, and V_1B receptor antagonists have shown efficacy in a number of preclinical models of depression. The efficacy and safety of, TS-121 (active ingredient: THY1773), a novel V_1B receptor antagonist, was investigated in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who had an inadequate response to current antidepressant therapy. In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 study, 51 MDD patients (43 of whom completed the study) were randomly assigned to either TS-121 10 mg, 50 mg or placebo for 6 weeks treatment period. The primary endpoint was change from baseline on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score at week 6. The study was conducted from Jul 2017 to Dec 2018. The changes from baseline in MADRS score at week 6 (Least Square Mean [95% Confidence interval] were: TS-121 10 mg (-9.0 [-13.9, -4.1]), TS-121 50 mg (-9.0 [-13.4, -4.5]), and placebo (-6.4 [-10.7, -2.2]). TS-121 groups showed greater numerical reductions in MADRS score change from baseline compared to placebo, though these reductions did not achieve statistical significance. Similar trends of numerically greater improvements in TS-121 groups were observed across secondary endpoints. Higher baseline urinary and hair cortisol levels were associated with a greater separation between TS-121 groups and the placebo group in the primary endpoint. These findings, combined with favorable safety and tolerability, warrant further investigation of TS-121 in an adequately powered study in patients with MDD.

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.

'Effective' at What? On Effective Intervention in Serious Mental Illness

The term "effective," on its own, is honorific but vague. Interventions against serious mental illness may be "effective" at goals as diverse as reducing "apparent sadness" or providing housing. Underexamined use of "effective" and other success terms often obfuscates differences and incompatibilities in interventions, degrees of effectiveness, key omissions in effectiveness standards, and values involved in determining what counts as "effective." Yet vague use of such success terms is common in the research, clinical, and policy realms, with consequences that negatively affect the care offered to individuals experiencing serious mental illness. A pragmatist-oriented solution to these problems suggests that when people use success terms, they need to explain and defend the goals and supporting values embedded in the terms, asking and answering the questions, "Effective at what? For whom? How effective? And why that goal?" Practical and epistemic standards for effectiveness will likely remain plural for good reasons, but each standard should be well explained and well justified.

A Post-Authorization Safety Study of Quetiapine as Antidepressant Treatment in Sweden: Nested Case-Control Analyses of Select Outcomes

Introduction

This post-authorization safety study (PASS) was a commitment to the European Medicines Agency.

Objective

This PASS investigated quetiapine as antidepressant treatment in Swedish registers with regard to the risk for all-cause mortality, self-harm and suicide, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, diabetes mellitus, extrapyramidal disorders, and somnolence.

Methods

Users of quetiapine and antidepressants (2011‒2014) who had changed treatment in the past year were included. Conditional logistic regression models were used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each outcome in nested case–control studies for quetiapine as combination therapy and monotherapy, monotherapy with antidepressants, and no medication, versus the use of combinations of antidepressants (reference group).

Results

Overall, 7421 quetiapine users and 281,303 antidepressant users were included. For quetiapine in combination, risks were increased for all-cause mortality [adjusted OR (aOR) 1.31, 95% CI 1.12–1.54] compared with combinations of antidepressants; however, when stratified by age, only patients ≥ 65 years of age had an increased mortality, and, in a post hoc analysis excluding patients with Parkinson’s disease, no mortality increase remained. Furthermore, the risk for self-harm and suicide was increased (aOR 1.53, 95% CI 1.31–1.79), but when stratified by age, the risk increase was found only among patients aged 18–64 years. Risks were also increased for stroke among patients ≥ 65 years of age (aOR 1.47, 95% CI 1.01–2.12), for extrapyramidal disorder (aOR 6.15, 95% CI 3.57–10.58), and for somnolence (aOR 2.41, 95% CI 1.42–4.11).

Conclusion

Risks for all-cause mortality, self-harm and suicide, and stroke in older patients may be higher among patients treated with quetiapine and antidepressant combination therapy.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40264-019-00889-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Management of Treatment-Resistant Depression: Challenges and Strategies

Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is a subset of Major Depressive Disorder which does not respond to traditional and first-line therapeutic options. There are several definitions and staging models of TRD and a consensus for each has not yet been established. However, in common for each model is the inadequate response to at least 2 trials of antidepressant pharmacotherapy. In this review, a comprehensive analysis of existing literature regarding the challenges and management of TRD has been compiled. A PubMed search was performed to assemble meta-analyses, trials and reviews on the topic of TRD. First, we address the confounds in the definitions and staging models of TRD, and subsequently the difficulties inherent in assessing the illness. Pharmacological augmentation strategies including lithium, triiodothyronine and second-generation antipsychotics are reviewed, as is switching of antidepressant class. Somatic therapies, including several modalities of brain stimulation (electroconvulsive therapy, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, magnetic seizure therapy and deep brain stimulation) are detailed, psychotherapeutic strategies and subsequently novel therapeutics including ketamine, psilocybin, anti-inflammatories and new directions are reviewed in this manuscript. Our review of the evidence suggests that further large-scale work is necessary to understand the appropriate treatment pathways for TRD and to prescribe effective therapeutic options for patients suffering from TRD.

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.

Enhancing Completion of Cognitive Processing Therapy for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder with Quetiapine in Veterans with Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: a Case Series

To evaluate the outcomes of the antiarousal medications valproate, risperidone, and quetiapine on completion of treatment of cognitive processing therapy (CPT) for PTSD. A case series of fifty treatment-seeking adult (≥18 years) veterans with mild traumatic brain injury and combat-related PTSD who had unsuccessful trials of 2 or more first-line agents and previously declined treatment with trauma-focused therapy, seen at the psychiatric outpatient services of the local Polytrauma Rehabilitation Center from January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2017. Patients were prescribed valproate (n = 8), risperidone (n = 17), or quetiapine (n = 25) and were referred for individual weekly treatment with CPT. Outcome measurements of interest were measures of engagement and completion rate of CPT, PTSD Checklist total score (range, 0-80; higher scores indicate greater PTSD severity) and arousal subscale score (range, 0-24; higher scores indicate greater arousal severity), and clinical observations of sleep variables. Of the 50 patients included in the study, 48 (96%) were men; mean (SD) age was 36 (8) years. Eighteen (86%) patients initially receiving quetiapine and none taking valproate or risperidone became adequately engaged in and completed CPT. Among patients who completed CPT, the mean decrease in the PTSD Checklist score was 25 [95% CI, 30 to 20] and 9 (50%) patients no longer met criteria for PTSD. These preliminary findings support quetiapine as an adjunctive medication to facilitate CPT. A pragmatic trial is needed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and feasibility of quetiapine to improve engagement in and completion rate of CPT.

Treating depression with adjunctive antipsychotics

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of using adjunctive antipsychotics in patients with major depressive disorder.

METHOD

Studies published since the last Cochrane review conducted in 2010 were identified via a literature search of recognised databases, using the keywords "adjunct*", "augment*", "antipsychotic" and "depression", and systematically evaluated. A targeted review of relevant guidelines was undertaken.

RESULTS

Adjunctive antipsychotics produce a small but significant improvement in depressive symptoms in most studies. Most of the studies focussed on patients with an inadequate response to antidepressants rather than patients with treatment resistant depression. Treatment guidelines were variable but generally supported the use of adjunctive antipsychotics while cautioning about the risk of side effects. Most were non-specific about the length of time adjunctive antipsychotics should be prescribed.

CONCLUSIONS

The studies do not support the routine use of adjunctive antipsychotics in patients with an inadequate response to antidepressants. They may be beneficial when used short-term in patients with treatment resistant depression who have specific symptoms (severe ruminations, melancholia, major sleep disturbance) that appear to respond well to adjunctive antipsychotics. There is no support for long-term use. Research should focus on specifying which symptom profiles are responsive and how adjunctive antipsychotics compare to other strategies in treatment resistant depression.

Efficacy and safety of flexibly dosed brexpiprazole for the adjunctive treatment of major depressive disorder: a randomized, active-referenced, placebo-controlled study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of brexpiprazole as adjunctive treatment in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) and an inadequate response to prior antidepressant treatment (ADT).

METHODS

Patients with a current major depressive episode after prior treatment with 1-3 ADTs entered an 8- or 10-week prospective treatment phase in which they received double-blind placebo adjunct to open-label ADT. Inadequate responders were randomized (2:2:1) to brexpiprazole 2-3 mg/day, placebo, or quetiapine extended-release (XR) 150-300 mg/day, adjunct to the same ADT, for 6 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline (randomization) to week 6 in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. The key secondary efficacy endpoint was the change in Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) mean score.

RESULTS

Adjunctive brexpiprazole showed a greater improvement in MADRS total score than adjunctive placebo (least squares mean difference [95% confidence interval] = -1.48 [-2.56, -0.39]; p = .0078), whereas adjunctive quetiapine XR did not separate from placebo (-0.30 [-1.63, 1.04]; p = .66). Adjunctive brexpiprazole failed to separate from placebo on the SDS mean score (-0.23 [-0.52, 0.07]; p = .13), but did improve functioning on two of the three SDS items (family life and social life). The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events in patients receiving brexpiprazole were akathisia (6.1%), somnolence (5.6%), and headache (5.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Adjunctive brexpiprazole 2-3 mg/day improved symptoms of depression compared with adjunctive placebo in patients with MDD and an inadequate response to ADTs, and was well tolerated with no unexpected side effects.

Korean Medication Algorithm for Depressive Disorders 2017: Third Revision

OBJECTIVE

In 2002, the Korean Society for Affective Disorders developed the guidelines for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD), and revised it in 2006 and 2012. The third revision of these guidelines was undertaken to reflect advances in the field.

METHODS

Using a 44-item questionnaire, an expert consensus was obtained on pharmacological treatment strategies for MDD 1) without or 2) with psychotic features, 3) depression subtypes, 4) maintenance, 5) special populations, 6) the choice of an antidepressant (AD) regarding safety and adverse effects, and 7) non-pharmacological biological therapies. Recommended first, second, and third-line strategies were derived statistically.

RESULTS

AD monotherapy is recommended as the first-line strategy for non-psychotic depression in adults, children/adolescents, elderly adults, patient with persistent depressive disorder, and pregnant women or patients with postpartum depression or premenstrual dysphoric disorder. The combination of AD and atypical antipsychotics (AAP) was recommended for psychotic depression in adult, child/adolescent, postpartum depression, and mixed features or anxious distress. Most experts recommended stopping the ongoing initial AD and AAP after a certain period in patients with one or two depressive episodes. As an MDD treatment modality, 92% of experts are considering electroconvulsive therapy and 46.8% are applying it clinically, while 86% of experts are considering repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation but only 31.6% are applying it clinically.

CONCLUSION

The pharmacological treatment strategy in 2017 is similar to that of Korean Medication Algorithm for Depressive Disorder 2012. The preference of AAPs was more increased.

Antidepressant combination versus antidepressants plus second-generation antipsychotic augmentation in treatment-resistant unipolar depression

Patients with treatment-resistant unipolar depression (TRD) are treated with antidepressant combinations (ADs) or with second-generation antipsychotics plus AD (SGA+AD) augmentation; however, the clinical characteristics, the factors associated independently with response to SGA+AD, and the outcome trajectories have not yet been characterized. We performed a naturalistic study on the latest stable trial (medication unchanged for about 3 months) in 86 TRD patients with resistance to at least two ADs trials, who received ADs (n=36) or SGA+AD (n=50) treatments. Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Hamilton-Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D17), and other scales were administered before (T0) and after the latest 3-month stable trial (T3). Compared to ADs, the SGA+AD group showed increased percentage of depression with psychotic features, comorbidity for personality disorders and substance use disorders (SUD), higher number of failed ADs pharmacotherapies and depressive symptoms at T0 on all scales (P<0.001). Compared to T0, both treatments significantly decreased depressive symptoms on MADRS and HAM-D17 at T3 (P<0.001); however, the SGA+AD augmentation produced a greater decline in mean score. Logistic regression analysis indicated that psychotic features, personality disorders, and SUD were independently associated with SGA+AD treatment. Given the greater improvement in depression following SGA+AD augmentation, SGA augmentation should be indicated as a first-line treatment in severe TRD with psychotic features, SUD, and personality disorders.

Study protocol for a randomised pragmatic trial comparing the clinical and cost effectiveness of lithium and quetiapine augmentation in treatment resistant depression (the LQD study)

BACKGROUND

Approximately 30-50% of patients with major depressive disorder can be classed as treatment resistant, widely defined as a failure to respond to two or more adequate trials of antidepressants in the current episode. Treatment resistant depression is associated with a poorer prognosis and higher mortality rates. One treatment option is to augment an existing antidepressant with a second agent. Lithium and the atypical antipsychotic quetiapine are two such add-on therapies and are currently recommended as first line options for treatment resistant depression. However, whilst neither treatment has been established as superior to the other in short-term studies, they have yet to be compared head-to-head in longer term studies, or with a superiority design in this patient group.

METHODS

The Lithium versus Quetiapine in Depression (LQD) study is a parallel group, multi-centre, pragmatic, open-label, patient randomised clinical trial designed to address this gap in knowledge. The study will compare the clinical and cost effectiveness of the decision to prescribe lithium or quetiapine add-on therapy to antidepressant medication for patients with treatment resistant depression. Patients will be randomised 1:1 and followed up over 12 months, with the hypothesis being that quetiapine will be superior to lithium. The primary outcomes will be: (1) time to all-cause treatment discontinuation over one year, and (2) self-rated depression symptoms rated weekly for one year via the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology. Other outcomes will include between group differences in response and remission rates, quality of life, social functioning, cost-effectiveness and the frequency of serious adverse events and side effects.

DISCUSSION

The trial aims to help shape the treatment pathway for patients with treatment resistant depression, by determining whether the decision to prescribe quetiapine is superior to lithium. Strengths of the study include its pragmatic superiority design, broad inclusion criteria (external validity) and longer follow up than previous studies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN16387615 , registered 28 February 2016. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03004521 , registered 17 November 2016.

Activating and Sedating Adverse Effects of Second-Generation Antipsychotics in the Treatment of Schizophrenia and Major Depressive Disorder: Absolute Risk Increase and Number Needed to Harm

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND

Activating and sedating adverse effects of antipsychotics can be obstacles to their use.

METHODS/PROCEDURES

This study quantified the activating and sedating properties of first-line oral second-generation antipsychotics by examining the rates of adverse reactions as reported in product labeling for the indications of schizophrenia and adjunctive treatment of major depressive disorder. Additional data sources included regulatory documents, study synopses, and published study reports. Attributable risk increase and number needed to harm (NNH) were calculated for each agent versus placebo.

FINDINGS/RESULTS

Heterogeneity among the different antipsychotics regarding activating or sedating adverse events was observed, with some agents displaying the potential for both activating and sedating properties. For agents indicated for the treatment of schizophrenia, predominantly activating medications include lurasidone (NNH, 11 for akathisia vs 20 for somnolence) and cariprazine (NNH, 15 for akathisia vs 65 for somnolence-combined terms). Similarly activating and sedating are risperidone (NNH, 15 for akathisia vs 13 for sedation) and aripiprazole (NNH, 31 for akathisia vs 34 for somnolence). Predominantly sedating are olanzapine, quetiapine immediate and extended release, ziprasidone, asenapine, and iloperidone. Agents that are neither activating nor sedating are paliperidone and brexpiprazole. For major depressive disorder, the overall findings regarding activation and sedation appear similar to those seen with schizophrenia. Data extracted were limited to those available from registrational studies that contributed to the adverse event tables contained in the product labels. Postregistrational comparative studies may yield different outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS

Differences in tolerability profiles regarding activation and sedation have implications in terms of selecting the optimal antipsychotic for a given individual.

A Guide to Medications Inducing Salivary Gland Dysfunction, Xerostomia, and Subjective Sialorrhea: A Systematic Review Sponsored by the World Workshop on Oral Medicine VI

BACKGROUND

Medication-induced salivary gland dysfunction (MISGD), xerostomia (sensation of oral dryness), and subjective sialorrhea cause significant morbidity and impair quality of life. However, no evidence-based lists of the medications that cause these disorders exist.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to compile a list of medications affecting salivary gland function and inducing xerostomia or subjective sialorrhea.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases were searched for relevant articles published until June 2013. Of 3867 screened records, 269 had an acceptable degree of relevance, quality of methodology, and strength of evidence. We found 56 chemical substances with a higher level of evidence and 50 with a moderate level of evidence of causing the above-mentioned disorders. At the first level of the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification system, 9 of 14 anatomical groups were represented, mainly the alimentary, cardiovascular, genitourinary, nervous, and respiratory systems. Management strategies include substitution or discontinuation of medications whenever possible, oral or systemic therapy with sialogogues, administration of saliva substitutes, and use of electro-stimulating devices.

LIMITATIONS

While xerostomia was a commonly reported outcome, objectively measured salivary flow rate was rarely reported. Moreover, xerostomia was mostly assessed as an adverse effect rather than the primary outcome of medication use. This study may not include some medications that could cause xerostomia when administered in conjunction with others or for which xerostomia as an adverse reaction has not been reported in the literature or was not detected in our search.

CONCLUSIONS

We compiled a comprehensive list of medications with documented effects on salivary gland function or symptoms that may assist practitioners in assessing patients who complain of dry mouth while taking medications. The list may also prove useful in helping practitioners anticipate adverse effects and consider alternative medications.

Effect of antipsychotic pharmacotherapy on clinical outcomes of intermittent theta-burst stimulation for refractory depression

Theta-burst stimulation is an emerging protocol for repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation that takes 1-3 min to administer, yet offers equal/superior potency to conventional protocols lasting 30-60 min. However, preclinical evidence suggests that D2 receptor blockade may abolish the acute effects of theta-burst stimulation on synaptic facilitation or inhibition. As many patients presenting for repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation are taking antipsychotic medications as augmentation for treatment-resistant depression, this finding is potentially concerning for the implementation of theta-burst stimulation in clinical settings. Here, we examined whether treatment-resistant depression patients taking antipsychotics have worse outcomes after a course of intermittent theta-burst stimulation. A chart review identified 105 treatment-resistant depression patients who underwent dorsomedial prefrontal-intermittent theta-burst stimulation; clinical outcomes on Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and Beck Depression Inventory were compared for those taking and not taking antipsychotics. The 29 of 105 patients who were taking antipsychotics showed non-significantly better response and remission rates, and non-significantly larger percentage improvements on both scales, with a positive but non-significant correlation between higher antipsychotic dose and larger percentage improvement. Contrary to expectations, outcomes were not significantly worse, and in some analyses trended towards being better, in patients taking antipsychotics. Future randomized controlled studies of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation combined with standardized dopaminergic manipulations may be justified and warranted.

Cost-effectiveness of brexpiprazole adjunctive treatment for major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a debilitating psychiatric illness with a high cost burden. This analysis evaluates the cost-effectiveness of adjunctive brexpiprazole versus comparator branded adjunctive treatment for MDD and background antidepressant therapy (ADT) alone from a US payer perspective.

METHODS

An economic model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of brexpiprazole versus comparator adjunctive treatment and ADT alone on total direct medical costs using a 6-week cycle time frame for a total of 48 weeks, with treatment response and remission as primary outcomes. The model consisted of 3 parts, 1 to represent the acute treatment phase and 2 to represent the maintenance stage.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, brexpiprazole as reference treatment resulted in cost per additional responder ranging from $19,442-$48,745 and cost per additional remitter ranging from $27,196-$71,839 versus comparator treatments over 48 weeks. Sensitivity analyses showed treatment with brexpiprazole was more costly, but more clinically effective in all probabilistic simulations.

LIMITATIONS

This representation of disease natural history over 48 weeks may not account for all possible health states. Resource utilization on treatment was estimated using the resource use data from previous trials, and may overestimate medical costs compared to the real-world setting. Treatment comparators were limited to branded therapies, and head-to-head studies were not available to obtain data inputs.

CONCLUSION

Compared to other branded adjunctive therapies, brexpiprazole increases response and remission at 6 weeks; medical care cost savings were observed with the use of brexpiprazole. These findings may assist clinicians and formulary decision makers when selecting treatment for MDD.

Call to Caution with the Use of Atypical Antipsychotics for Treatment of Depression in Older Adults

Atypical antipsychotics are increasingly being used to manage depression in older adults where these symptoms can often be refractory to first-line treatment with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs). Unfortunately, atypical antipsychotics can be associated with the development of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), with drug-induced parkinsonism (DIP) being the most common movement disorder induced by this class of medication. The management of treatment-resistant depression in older adults is of particular concern as depression is a common feature of idiopathic Parkinson’s disease (IPD) and can manifest prior to the development of motor symptoms. Herein, we discuss the use of atypical antipsychotics for the management of depression in older adults including the risk of DIP and propose that antipsychotics may potentially unmask IPD.

Do Atypical Antipsychotics Have Antisuicidal Effects? A Hypothesis-Generating Overview

Modern antipsychotic drugs are employed increasingly in the treatment of mood disorders as well as psychoses, stimulating interest in their possible contributions to altering suicidal risk. Clozapine remains the only treatment with an FDA-recognized indication for reducing suicidal risk (in schizophrenia). We carried out a systematic, computerized search for reports of studies involving antipsychotic drug treatment and suicidal behaviors. A total of 19 reports provide data with preliminary support for potential suicide risk-reducing effects of olanzapine, quetiapine, ziprasidone, aripiprazole, and asenapine in addition to clozapine, and provide some support for antipsychotic drug treatment in general. These preliminary findings encourage further testing of antipsychotics for effects on suicidal behavior, making use of explicit, pre-planned assessments of suicidal behavior.

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.

Antipsychotics as antidepressants

Three second-generation antipsychotic (SGA) agents have received FDA approval for adjunctive treatment, to antidepressant, of major depressive disorder: quetiapine, aripiprazole, and olanzapine. Additionally, quetiapine and lurasidone have been approved for the treatment of bipolar depression. There are data suggesting that quetiapine is effective for major depressive disorder as monotherapy. These agents are effective for depression only at subantipsychotic doses. Receptor profiles predict that all SGA will have anxiolytic effects as subantipsychotic doses but that all will be dysphorogenic at full antipsychotic doses (i.e., produce a depression-like clinical picture). The antidepressant effect appears to be unique to some agents, with direct evidence of insignificant antidepressant action for ziprasidone. Three general principles can guide the use of antipsychotics as antidepressants: (i) All SGAs may have anxiolytic effects; (ii) full antipsychotic doses are dysphorogenic, and therefore, subantipsychotic doses are to be used; and (iii) SGAs do not have a general antidepressant effect, rather, this appears to be unique to quetiapine and aripiprazole, and possibly lurasidone.

Spotlight on brexpiprazole and its potential in the treatment of schizophrenia and as adjunctive therapy for the treatment of major depression

Antipsychotic agents, utilized for the treatment of a range of psychiatric disorders, differ substantially in terms of their pharmacology and adverse effect profiles. Incomplete and variable efficacy, differences in safety-tolerability, and highly heterogeneous response across individuals prompt development of new agents. Brexpiprazole is one of the two most recently introduced antipsychotic agents approved for the treatment of schizophrenia and as an adjunct for treatment of major depressive disorder. Its pharmacology, clinical trial data, and efficacy and side effects in comparison with other antipsychotic agents are discussed. Brexpiprazole is a dopamine D-2 partial agonist with potent activity at the serotonin 5HT1A and 5HT2A and noradrenergic alpha-1B and alpha-2C receptors. Placebo-controlled clinical trials in persons with schizophrenia support its efficacy in treating psychosis and preventing relapse. Short-term clinical trials also support its efficacy as an adjunct to antidepressants in treating major depressive disorder in individuals inadequately responsive to antidepressant treatment alone. Adverse effects include akathisia, gastrointestinal side effects, and moderate weight gain. The recommended oral dose of brexpiprazole is 2-4 mg/day in schizophrenia and 2-3 mg/day as adjunctive treatment in major depression. It must be titrated up to its target dose over 1-2 weeks and is effective in once-daily dosing. How brexpiprazole's unique pharmacological profile will translate into clinically meaningful differences from other antipsychotic agents is unclear. Its place in our antipsychotic armamentarium and potential role in the treatment of schizophrenia and major depressive disorder will be determined by additional clinical data and experience.

Comorbid Anxiety and Depressive Symptoms in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Analysis

BACKGROUND

A large and extensive body of research has examined comorbid anxiety and depression in adults. Children and adolescents also frequently present with comorbid anxiety and depression; however, research and treatment require unique environmental and neurodevelopmental considerations in children. As a result, our understanding of comorbid anxiety and depression in children and adolescents is limited.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this systematic review was to examine the current literature focused on comorbid anxiety and depression in children and adolescents. The review included theoretical conceptualizations as well as diagnostic, neurobiological, prevention, and treatment considerations. In addition, a proposed algorithm for the treatment of comorbid anxiety and depression in children/adolescents is provided.

METHODS

This systematic literature review included 3 discrete searches in Ovid SP Medline, PsycInfo, and PubMed.

RESULTS

The review included and synthesized 115 articles published between 1987 and 2015. The available evidence suggests that anxiety and depression are common in clinical populations of children and adolescents, and that comorbidity is likely underestimated in children and adolescents. Children and adolescents with comorbid anxiety and depression have unique presentations, greater symptom severity, and treatment resistance compared with those who have either disease in isolation. A dimensional approach may be necessary for the future development of diagnostic strategies and treatments for this population. Nascent neuroimaging work suggests that anxiety and depression each represents a distinct neurobiological phenotype.

CONCLUSIONS

The literature that is currently available suggests that comorbid anxiety and depression is a common presentation in children and adolescents. This diagnostic picture underscores the importance of comprehensive dimensional assessments and multimodal evidence-based approaches given the high disease severity. Future research on the neurobiology and the treatment of these common clinical conditions is warranted.