Double-blind study of high-dose fluoxetine versus lithium or desipramine augmentation of fluoxetine in partial responders and nonresponders to fluoxetine

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.

Fluoxetine plus lithium for treatment of mental health impairment in Long Covid

Purposes

(1) To summarize the mental conditions that may accompany persistent symptoms following acute infection by SARS-CoV-2, often termed Long Covid; (2) to formulate treatment based upon the brain cells that are dominantly affected.

Methods

(1) Review the reports relating to the mental symptoms occurring in Long Covid. (2) Review the drugs that address the brain cells affected in Long Covid, and suggest pharmacotherapy for those patients whose response to psychotherapy is suboptimal.

Results

Long Covid affects ~ 10% of patients infected by SARS-CoV-2, and mental symptoms affect ~ 20% of persons with Long Covid. The brain cell-types that have been demonstrated as dominantly affected in Long Covid are astrocytes, oligodendrocytes, neurons, endothelial cells/pericytes, and microglia. Lithium and fluoxetine each address all of those four cell-types. Low dosage of each is likely to be well-tolerated and to cause neither clinically important adverse events (AE) nor serious adverse events (SAE).

Conclusion

For those patients whose response to psychotherapy is suboptimal, lithium and fluoxetine should be administered in combination for both depth of benefit and reduction of dosages.

Repurposing fluoxetine to treat lymphocytic leukemia: Apoptosis induction, sigma-1 receptor upregulation, inhibition of IL-2 cytokine production, and autophagy induction

BACKGROUND

Childhood cancer has a cure rate of as low as 15% in low-income countries, suggesting a need for cheaper treatment options. Fluoxetine is a thoroughly safety-tested drug that may target the sigma-1 receptor (σ1-R).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Using the human leukemic cell line, Jurkat, we investigated the effects of fluoxetine on cell survival using XTT and trypan blue staining. Apoptosis was measured using AnnexinV/PI staining and western blot analysis of caspase cleavage. IL-2 secretion of Jurkat cells in response to PHA/PMA was measured using ELISA, and the expression of AKT/pAKT and the σ1-R were measured using western blotting.

RESULTS

Fluoxetine-induced apoptosis and G-2 cell cycle arrest. Fluoxetine reduced IL-2 secretion dose-dependently and could be further potentiated by σ1-R antagonist BD1047 (P < 0.05). Fluoxetine inhibited pAKT six hours post-treatment (P < 0.05). The expression of the σ1-R showed a significant increase between 12 to 48 hours in Jurkat cells (P < 0.05). At the same time, there was a substantial increase in autophagy.

CONCLUSIONS

Fluoxetine may have the potential for acute leukemia treatment. Co-treatment with a σ1-R antagonist increases fluoxetine-induced apoptosis, possibly targeting AKT phosphorylation and autophagy activation.

Combining Antidepressants vs Antidepressant Monotherapy for Treatment of Patients With Acute Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Combining antidepressants is frequently done in the treatment of acute depression, but studies have yielded conflicting results.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing efficacy and tolerability of combination therapy. Combinations using presynaptic α2-autoreceptor antagonists or bupropion were investigated separately.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched from each database inception through January 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing combinations of antidepressants with antidepressant monotherapy in adult patients with acute depression were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Following guidelines from Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and recommendations from the Cochrane Handbook, 2 reviewers independently performed a literature search, study selection, data extraction, and evaluation of risk of bias. Data were pooled in random-effects analyses.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary outcome was efficacy measured as standardized mean difference (SMD); secondary outcomes were response, remission, change from baseline in rating scale scores, number of dropouts, and number of dropouts due to adverse events.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine RCTs including 6751 patients were eligible. Combination treatment was statistically significantly associated with superior treatment outcomes relative to monotherapy (SMD = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.19-0.44). Combining a reuptake inhibitor with an antagonist of presynaptic α2-autoreceptors was superior to other combinations (SMD = 0.37; 95% CI, 0.19-0.55). Bupropion combinations were not superior to monotherapy (SMD = 0.10; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.27). Numbers of dropouts and dropouts due to adverse events did not differ between treatments. Studies were heterogeneous, and there was indication of publication bias (Egger test result was positive; P = .007, df = 36), but results remained robust across prespecified secondary outcomes and sensitivity and subgroup analyses, including analyses restricted to studies with low risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this meta-analysis of RCTs comparing combinations of antidepressants with antidepressant monotherapy, combining antidepressants was associated with superior treatment outcomes but not with more patients dropping out of treatment. Combinations using an antagonist of presynaptic α2-autoreceptors may be preferable and may be applied as a first-line treatment in severe cases of depression and for patients considered nonresponders.

Augmentative Pharmacological Strategies in Treatment-Resistant Major Depression: A Comprehensive Review

Treatment resistant depression (TRD) is associated with poor outcomes, but a consensus is lacking in the literature regarding which compound represents the best pharmacological augmentation strategy to antidepressants (AD). In the present review, we identify the available literature regarding the pharmacological augmentation to AD in TRD. Research in the main psychiatric databases was performed (PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge, PsychInfo). Only original articles in English with the main topic being pharmacological augmentation in TRD and presenting a precise definition of TRD were included. Aripiprazole and lithium were the most investigated molecules, and aripiprazole presented the strongest evidence of efficacy. Moreover, olanzapine, quetiapine, cariprazine, risperidone, and ziprasidone showed positive results but to a lesser extent. Brexpiprazole and intranasal esketamine need further study in real-world practice. Intravenous ketamine presented an evincible AD effect in the short-term. The efficacy of adjunctive ADs, antiepileptic drugs, psychostimulants, pramipexole, ropinirole, acetyl-salicylic acid, metyrapone, reserpine, testosterone, T3/T4, naltrexone, SAMe, and zinc cannot be precisely estimated in light of the limited available data. Studies on lamotrigine and pindolol reported negative results. According to our results, aripiprazole and lithium may be considered by clinicians as potential effective augmentative strategies in TRD, although the data regarding lithium are somewhat controversial. Reliable conclusions about the other molecules cannot be drawn. Further controlled comparative studies, standardized in terms of design, doses, and duration of the augmentative treatments, are needed to formulate definitive conclusions.

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.

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.

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.

A randomized, double-blind, 6-week prospective pilot study on the efficacy and safety of dose escalation in non-remitters in comparison to those of the standard dose of escitalopram for major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND

Escalating doses of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are often used to treat patients with a suboptimal response to the standard dose. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of dose escalation of escitalopram, up to 30 mg, in non-remitters with major depressive disorder (MDD) after treatment with the standard dose.

METHOD

We recruited 98 patients with MDD (aged 18-65 years). After 4 weeks of open-label treatment with 10-20 mg of escitalopram per day, non-remitters [Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score > 10] were randomized 1:1 for double-blind treatment with either escitalopram (30 mg per day) or escitalopram (20 mg per day) plus placebo for 6 weeks. The primary efficacy outcome was a change in the total MADRS score.

RESULTS

After 4 weeks of open-label treatment, 12 patients achieved remission, and 36 dropped out, leaving 50 non-remitters, of whom 44 (88%) completed the double-blind study. The primary outcome measure, the least-squares mean (standard error) change in the total MADRS score at week 6 was significantly different (p = 0.046) between the groups [-8.0 (1.2) in the placebo dose-escalation and -11.8 (1.2) in the escitalopram dose-escalation]. The dose escalation of escitalopram was well tolerated. However, the response and remission rates and quality of life showed no significant differences.

LIMITATIONS

Small sample size and short follow-up period CONCLUSION: This study suggests that dose escalation of escitalopram up to 30 mg per day may be beneficial for the treatment of depressive symptoms in non-remitters after standard (10-20 mg/day) treatment.

Dose Escalation of Antidepressants in Unipolar Depression: A Meta-Analysis of Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

As many patients with unipolar depression do not respond sufficiently to initial antidepressant monotherapy, a dose increase of the current administered antidepressant (dose escalation, high-dose treatment) is frequently carried out as next treatment measure.

METHODS

We conducted a meta-analysis which included all double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a dose increase of antidepressants directly to continuation of standard-dose treatment in unipolar depressive patients who were non- responders to standard-dose pharmacotherapy. A mean change in the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) total score was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were response rates and discontinuation rates due to any reason, inefficacy, and adverse effects. Hedges g and risk ratios were calculated as effect sizes.

RESULTS

Seven double-blind RCTs (8 study arms) representing 1,208 participants were included. Fluoxetine (N [number of studies] = 2, n [number of patients] = 448), sertraline (N = 2, n = 272), paroxetine (N = 2, n = 146), duloxetine (N = 1, n = 255), and maprotiline (N = 1, n = 87) were investigated. Dose escalation was not more efficacious in HAM-D total score reduction than maintaining standard-dose treatment, neither for the pooled antidepressant group (N = 7, n = 999; Hedges g = -0.04, 95% CI: -0.20 to 0.12; p = 0.63) nor the individual antidepressants. No differences could be determined for response rates, all-cause discontinuation, and drop-outs due to inefficacy. Significantly more patients in the dose escalation group dropped out due to adverse effects than in the standard-dose continuation group. The metaregressions indicate no influence of baseline symptom severity or amounts of dose increments on effect sizes.

CONCLUSIONS

According to our meta-analytic findings, dose escalation after initial non-response to standard-dose pharmacotherapy cannot be regarded as general evidence-based treatment option in unipolar depression.

Combining antidepressants: a review of evidence

Sequenced (stepped) treatment approaches are widely endorsed in the management of depression. Combining antidepressants is a recognised step for those failing to respond to monotherapy. Despite the limited evidence base, this strategy is widely used by clinicians in practice. Not every combination used clinically has a sound neuropharmacological rationale and the use of such combinations may increase the side-effect burden without any additional advantage to the patient. Efficacy of various antidepressant combinations along with the data on side-effect profile and toxicity of such combined treatments are reviewed here. The different combinations are considered by each class of antidepressant available in the UK.

Abandoning personalization to get to precision in the pharmacotherapy of depression

Effectiveness studies and analyses of naturalistic cohorts demonstrate that many patients with major depressive disorder do not experience symptomatic remission with antidepressant treatments. In an effort to better match patients with effective treatments, numerous investigations of predictors or moderators of treatment response have been reported over the past five decades, including clinical features as well as biological measures. However, none of these have entered routine clinical practice; instead, clinicians typically personalize treatment on the basis of patient preferences as well as their own. Here, we review the reasons why it has been challenging to identify and deploy treatment-specific predictors of response, and suggest strategies that may be required to achieve true precision in the pharmacotherapy of depression. We emphasize the need for changes in how depression care is delivered, measured, and used to inform future practice.

Socio-demographic and clinical predictors of non-response/non-remission in treatment resistant depressed patients: A systematic review

Up to one third of patients adequately treated for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) do not respond to multiple interventions. Many studies investigated predictors in MDD outcome, but no study focused on predictors of non-response or non-remission to antidepressants in subjects with treatment resistant depression (TRD). The present study aimed to evaluate possible socio-demographic and clinical predictors of non-response and non-remission in MDD patients who failed to benefit from at least one antidepressant trial. A total of 51 papers were included. A number of severity indicators, such as longer duration of depressive episode, moderate-high suicidal risk, anxious comorbidity, higher number of hospitalizations and higher dosage of antidepressants, were associated with non-response as well as age. Interestingly, severity of illness, as well as comorbid personality disorders and anxiety symptoms, had also a predictive value in non-remission with the addition of marital status. Considering limitations, selected studies were observational or randomized non controlled/controlled trials and different TRD definitions and outcome measures were used. Overall, predictors of outcome were similar to MDD, but specific socio-demographic and clinical factors should be considered in clinical practice to formulate a more focused treatment in TRD patients.

Combining Antidepressants in Acute Treatment of Depression: A Meta-Analysis of 38 Studies Including 4511 Patients

OBJECTIVE

Combining antidepressants (ADs) for therapy of acute depression is frequently employed, but randomized studies have yielded conflicting results. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at determining efficacy and tolerability of combination therapy.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL databases were systematically searched through March 2014 for controlled studies comparing combinations of ADs with AD monotherapy in adult patients suffering from acute depression. The prespecified primary outcome was standardized mean difference (SMD), secondary outcomes were response, remission, and dropouts.

RESULTS

Among 8688 articles screened, 38 studies were eligible, including 4511 patients. Combination treatment was statistically, significantly superior to monotherapy (SMD 0.29; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.42). During monotherapy, slightly fewer patients dropped out due to adverse events (OR 0.90; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.53). Studies were heterogeneous (I(2) = 63%), and there was indication of moderate publication bias (fail-safe N for an effect of 0.1:44), but results remained robust across prespecified secondary outcomes and subgroups, including analyses restricted to randomized controlled trials and low risk of bias studies. Meta-regression revealed an association of SMD with difference in imipramine-equivalent dose. Combining a reuptake inhibitor with an antagonist of presynaptic α2-autoreceptors was superior to other combinations.

CONCLUSION

Combining ADs seems to be superior to monotherapy with only slightly more patients dropping out. Combining a reuptake inhibitor with an antagonist of presynaptic α2-autoreceptors seems to be significantly more effective than other combinations. Overall, our search revealed a dearth of well-designed studies.

Socio-demographic and clinical predictors of treatment resistant depression: A prospective European multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Few studies investigated socio-demographic and clinical predictors of non response and remission in treatment resistant depression (TRD) in the case of failure of more than two adequate antidepressant (AD) trial. The primary aim of this study was to investigate socio-demographic and clinical predictors of TRD defined as the lack of response to at least three adequate AD treatments, two of which prospectively evaluated. As secondary aims, we also investigated predictors of non response and remission to: (1) at least two adequate AD treatment (one of which prospectively assessed); (2) at least one adequate and retrospectively assessed AD treatment.

METHODS

In the context of a European multicenter project, 407 major depressive disorder (MDD) patients who failed to respond to a previous AD treatment were recruited for a 2 stage trial, firstly receiving venlafaxine and then escitalopram. MINI, HRSD, MADRS, UKU, CGI-S and CGI-I were administered.

RESULTS

Ninety eight subjects (27.61%) were considered as resistant to three AD treatments. Clinical predictors were: longer duration and higher severity of the current episode (p=0.004; ES=0.24; p=0.01; RR=1.41, respectively), outpatient status (p=0.04; RR=1.58), higher suicidal risk level (p=0.02; RR=1.49), higher rate of the first/second degree psychiatric antecedents (MDD and others) (p=0.04; RR=1.31, p=0.03; RR=1.32 respectively) and side effects during treatments (p=0.002; RR=2.82). Multivariate analyses underlined the association between TRD and the severity of the current episode (p=0.04). As for secondary outcomes, predicting factors were partially overlapping.

LIMITATIONS

The limited sample size and specific drugs used limit present findings.

CONCLUSION

Subjects with a high degree of resistance to AD treatments show specific features which may guide the clinicians to the choice of more appropriate therapies at baseline.

Safety and tolerability of antidepressant co-treatment in acute major depressive disorder: results from a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Although antidepressant (AD) monotherapy is recommended first-line for major depressive disorder (MDD), AD + AD co-treatment is common.

AREAS COVERED

We conducted the first systematic review searching PubMed/MEDLINE/PsycInfo/Embase from database inception until 1 June 2015 for acute randomized trials in ≥ 20 adults with MDD comparing AD monotherapy with AD + AD co-treatment that reported quantitative data on adverse events (AEs). Meta-analyzing 23 studies (n = 2435, duration = 6.6 weeks) AD monotherapy and AD + AD co-treatment were similar regarding intolerability-related discontinuation (risk ratio [RR] = 1.38, 95% CI = 0.89 - 1.10) and frequency of ≥ 1 AE (RR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.95 - 1.49). Nevertheless, AD + AD co-treatment was associated with significantly greater burden regarding 4/25 AEs (tremor: RR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.01 - 2.38; sweating: RR = 1.95, 95% CI = 1.13 -3.38, ≥ 7% weight gain: RR = 3.15, 95% CI = 1.34 - 7.41; weight gain = 2.17, 95% CI = 0.71 - 3.63 kg), but not more CNS, gastrointestinal, sexual or alertness-related AEs. However, 11/25 AEs (44.0%) were reported in only 1 - 2 studies. Adding noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressants (NaSSA) or tricyclic antidepressants (TCA) to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) was specifically associated with more AEs.

EXPERT OPINION

The potential for increased AEs with AD + AD co-treatment needs to be considered vis-à-vis unclear efficacy benefits of this strategy. In particular, NaSSAs and TCAs should be added to SSRIs with caution. Clearly, more data on side-effect burden of AD + AD co-treatment are needed.

Evidence-based guidelines for treating depressive disorders with antidepressants: A revision of the 2008 British Association for Psychopharmacology guidelines

A revision of the 2008 British Association for Psychopharmacology evidence-based guidelines for treating depressive disorders with antidepressants was undertaken in order to incorporate new evidence and to update the recommendations where appropriate. A consensus meeting involving experts in depressive disorders and their management was held in September 2012. Key areas in treating depression were reviewed and the strength of evidence and clinical implications were considered. The guidelines were then revised after extensive feedback from participants and interested parties. A literature review is provided which identifies the quality of evidence upon which the recommendations are made. These guidelines cover the nature and detection of depressive disorders, acute treatment with antidepressant drugs, choice of drug versus alternative treatment, practical issues in prescribing and management, next-step treatment, relapse prevention, treatment of relapse and stopping treatment. Significant changes since the last guidelines were published in 2008 include the availability of new antidepressant treatment options, improved evidence supporting certain augmentation strategies (drug and non-drug), management of potential long-term side effects, updated guidance for prescribing in elderly and adolescent populations and updated guidance for optimal prescribing. Suggestions for future research priorities are also made.

Faster, better, stronger: towards new antidepressant therapeutic strategies

Major depression is a highly prevalent disorder and is predicted to be the second leading cause of disease burden by 2020. Although many antidepressant drugs are currently available, they are far from optimal. Approximately 50% of patients do not respond to initial first line antidepressant treatment, while approximately one third fail to achieve remission following several pharmacological interventions. Furthermore, several weeks or months of treatment are often required before clinical improvement, if any, is reported. Moreover, most of the commonly used antidepressants have been primarily designed to increase synaptic availability of serotonin and/or noradrenaline and although they are of therapeutic benefit to many patients, it is clear that other therapeutic targets are required if we are going to improve the response and remission rates. It is clear that more effective, rapid-acting antidepressants with novel mechanisms of action are required. The purpose of this review is to outline the current strategies that are being taken in both preclinical and clinical settings for identifying superior antidepressant drugs. The realisation that ketamine has rapid antidepressant-like effects in treatment resistant patients has reenergised the field. Further, developing an understanding of the mechanisms underlying the rapid antidepressant effects in treatment-resistant patients by drugs such as ketamine may uncover novel therapeutic targets that can be exploited to meet the Olympian challenge of developing faster, better and stronger antidepressant drugs.

A systematic approach to pharmacotherapy for geriatric major depression

The broadening use of antidepressants among older Americans has not been associated with a notable decrease in the burden of geriatric depression. This article, based on a selective review of the literature, explores several explanations for this paradox. The authors propose that the effectiveness of antidepressants depends in large part on the way they are used. Evidence supports that antidepressant pharmacotherapy leads to better outcomes when guided by a treatment algorithm as opposed to attempting to individualize treatment. Several published guidelines and pharmacotherapy algorithms developed for the treatment of geriatric depression are reviewed, and an updated algorithm proposed.

Role of lithium augmentation in the management of major depressive disorder

The high rate of non-responders to initial treatment with antidepressants requires subsequent treatment strategies such as augmentation of antidepressants. Clinical guidelines recommend lithium augmentation as a first-line treatment strategy for non-responding depressed patients. The objectives of this review were to discuss the current place of lithium augmentation in the management of treatment-resistant depression and to review novel findings concerning lithium's mechanisms of action. We conducted a comprehensive and critical review of randomized, placebo-controlled trials, controlled and naturalistic comparator studies, and continuation-phase and discontinuation studies of lithium augmentation in major depression. The outcomes of interest were efficacy, factors allowing outcome prediction and results from preclinical studies investigating molecular mechanisms of lithium action. Substantial efficacy of lithium augmentation in the acute treatment of major depression has been demonstrated in more than 30 open-label studies and 10 placebo-controlled trials. In a meta-analysis addressing the efficacy of lithium in 10 randomized, controlled trials, it had a significant positive effect versus placebo, with an odds ratio of 3.11 corresponding to a number-needed-to-treat (NNT) of 5 and a mean response rate of 41.2% (versus 14.4% in the placebo group). The main limitations of these studies were the relatively small numbers of study participants and the fact that most studies included augmentation of tricyclic antidepressants, which are not in widespread use anymore. Evidence from continuation-phase studies is sparse but suggests that lithium augmentation should be maintained in the lithium-antidepressant combination for at least 1 year to prevent early relapses. Concerning outcome prediction, single studies have reported associations of better outcome rates with more severe depressive symptomatology, significant weight loss, psychomotor retardation, a history of more than three major depressive episodes and a family history of major depression. Additionally, one study suggested a predictive role of the -50T/C single nucleotide polymorphism of the glycogen synthase kinase 3 beta (GSK3B) gene in the probability of response to lithium augmentation. With regard to novel mechanisms of action, GABAergic, neurotrophic and genetic effects might explain the effects of lithium augmentation. In conclusion, augmentation of antidepressants with lithium remains a first-line, evidence-based management option for patients with major depression who have not responded adequately to antidepressants. While the mechanisms of action are currently widely studied, further clinical research on the role of lithium potentiation of the current generation of antidepressants is warranted to reinforce its role as a gold-standard treatment for patients who respond inadequately to antidepressants.

Combination pharmacotherapy in unipolar depression

It is estimated that between 60 and 80% of those with major depressive disorder do not achieve full symptomatic remission from first-line antidepressant monotherapy. Residual depressive symptoms substantially impair quality of life and add to the risk of recurrence. It is now clear that depression would benefit from more vigorous treatment, in order to ameliorate its disease burden. While there are established algorithms in situations of treatment resistance, the use of combination pharmacotherapy in unipolar depression is a relatively under-investigated area of treatment and may be an effective and tolerable strategy that maximizes the available resources. This paper reviews the current evidence for combination pharmacotherapy in unipolar depression and discusses its clinical applications.

Pharmacogenomic testing and personalized treatment of depression

BACKGROUND

There is wide variation in antidepressant efficacy and tolerability during the treatment of major depressive disorder, a brain disease associated with significant morbidity and mortality risk. The ability to rapidly identify optimal treatment, thereby shortening the time to symptomatic remission, could reduce these risks and associated costs.

CONTENT

Up to 42% of variance in antidepressant response is associated with common genetic variation, and there are over 10 psychotropic medications for which the US Food and Drug Administration-approved labeling reflects a genetic test. Most published studies have examined functional variations in genes of the cytochrome p450 system, relevant to metabolism of many antidepressants. However, there are few data supporting the clinical usefulness of specific pharmacogenetic tests. Randomized trials and cost-effectiveness studies are emerging, but larger-scale studies are needed. Specific challenges in translating genetic association results to clinical practice include need for replication to address risk of type I error, overestimation of effect sizes, absence of data from generalizable cohorts, and absence of comparative data that would suggest one specific intervention over another. Several opportunities to accelerate development and validation of new tools for stratification remain, including integration of these tests with clinical data or other biomarkers and application of electronic health records for test development and investigation.

SUMMARY

Although common genetic variation, particularly in genes of the cytochrome p450 system, has been associated with antidepressant response, evidence that this variation may be successfully applied to guide treatment selection is just emerging. Larger-scale studies facilitated by informatics tools will clarify the usefulness of such tests.

Antidepressant combinations: cutting edge psychopharmacology or passing fad?

This article reviews the rationale for and history of combining antidepressants, as well as the current state of the evidence, in the treatment of major depression. Although it has long been suggested that some individuals may benefit from regimens that combine two dissimilar antidepressants, enthusiasm for this practice has waxed and waned and there was never a strong empirical foundation to support this practice. The tangibly better safety profiles of the newer generation antidepressants, both singly and in combination, have permitted greater use of such combinations in contemporary practice than ever before. Combinations that pair a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) or serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) with a dissimilar antidepressant, such as bupropion or mirtazapine, are now widely used for patients who have not responded to trials of first- or second-line antidepressant monotherapies and have been tested as a potential way of speeding the benefits of treatment. However, there still is no strong evidence that even the most widely used combinations have particular merit and clinicians should be mindful that alternatives exist with more established efficacy. Moreover, aside from selected cases of drug-drug interactions, it may take full therapeutic doses of both drugs across a typically adequate duration of exposure to achieve the desired effects of combined treatment.

Treatment resistant depression: strategies for primary care

Depression is commonly diagnosed and treated in primary care. Recent evidence indicates that the majority of depressed patients will not fully recover with an initial antidepressant treatment. This paper reviews commonly used options for treatment after an inadequate initial antidepressant response. The alternatives range widely, and include escalating the dose of the initial antidepressant, switching to an alternative medication, combining two antidepressants with different mechanisms of action (e.g., bupropion + SSRI or mirtazapine + venlafaxine), adding other medications such as lithium or certain atypical antipsychotics (olanzapine, aripiprazole, or quetiapine) to the antidepressant, adding a natural product such as l-methylfolate or s-adenosylmethionine (SAMe), or adding cognitive behavioral psychotherapy. What agent to be used will depend on the comfort level of the primary care practitioner and the availability of Psychiatry referral. However, it is reasonable to take one or more additional steps to attempt to achieve remission.

Antidepressant monotherapy compared with combinations of antidepressants in the treatment of resistant depressive patients: a randomized, open-label study

OBJECTIVE

This randomized, 6-week, open-label study compared efficacy of CAD and antidepressant monotherapies (ADM) that had been chosen according to clinical judgment of the attending psychiatrist.

METHODS

A total of 60 inpatients (intent-to-treat analysis) with depressive disorder (≥ 1 unsuccessful antidepressant treatment) were randomly assigned to the interventions. The responders who completed the acute phase of study, were evaluated for relapse within 2 months of follow-up treatment. The primary outcome measure was change in the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and response was defined as a ≥ 50% reduction of MADRS score.

RESULTS

Mean changes in total MADRS score from baseline to week 6 for patients in both treatment modalities were not different (ADM = 13.2 ± 8.6 points; CAD = 14.5 ± 9.5 points; P = 0.58). The analysis of covariance performed for significantly higher value of imipramine equivalent dose in CAD group showed only a non-significant between-group difference for total MADRS change (P = 0.17). There were also no differences between groups in response rate (ADM = 48%; CAD = 58%) and number of drop-outs in acute treatment as well as proportion of responders' relapses in the follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Both treatment modalities produced clinically relevant reduction of depressive symptomatology in acute treatment of patients with resistant depression and their effect was comparable.

Antidepressant combination for major depression in incomplete responders--a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Antidepressant combination has been suggested as a strategy to increase treatment efficacy. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that assessed the effect of antidepressant combination for major depression in patients with incomplete response to an initial antidepressant.

METHODS

Studies were retrieved from PubMed (1966-February, 2012), Cochrane Library (-February, 2012), Embase (1980-February, 2012), PsycINFO (1980-February, 2012), Lilacs (1982-February, 2012), clinical trials registry, thesis database (www.capes.gov.br), and secondary references. Included studies had an open label phase in which an initial antidepressant was used for the treatment of major depression and a double blind phase for the incomplete responders that compared monotherapy with the first antidepressant versus the association of a second antidepressant to the first one.

RESULTS

Out of the 4,884 studies retrieved, only five satisfied the inclusion criteria. The total number of patients included was 483. Only two small trials reported benefits of adding a second antidepressant to the initial antidepressant. Dropouts due to side effects were not reported in three studies. Meta-analysis was not performed due to the small number of studies, the inconsistency in the direction of effect and the possible instability of effect size. Only limited kinds of combination, involving mianserin, mirtazapine and desipramine were studied. Some properties of the first two drugs such as the anxiolytic, sedative, and orexigenic effects, can mimic depression improvement.

LIMITATIONS

Publication bias cannot be ruled out. Only one study included a monotherapy arm with the antidepressant used for augmentation of the first antidepressant.

CONCLUSIONS

The practice of using a combination of antidepressants for major depression in incomplete responders is not warranted by the literature.

Antidepressant augmentation and combination in unipolar depression: strong guidance, weak foundations

Depression will be the second leading contributor to the global burden of disease by 2020. In Ireland, in 2009, 6061 people were hospitalised with depressive disorders. This represents a significant economic and social burden. There is growing awareness of the difficulty in treating depression with medications alone. The likelihood that a patient will achieve remission with the first antidepressant tried is around 30%, and the rates are similar for the second antidepressant tried. This falls to around 15% after three trials. Many patients are exposed to pharmacotherapy for extended periods of time with little beneficial effect, but often with side-effects. Patients are therefore in great need of clear information with regard to their chance of success. Clinicians are in need of clear guidance on prescribing strategies which have proven efficacy. However, this guidance often discusses treatment strategies based on varying levels of evidence. Guiding bodies may approach the problem from varying perspectives. The UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has a clear government mandate with regard to provision of not only effective but cost-effective treatments. The British Association of Psychopharmacology (BAP) is an independent body of interested researchers and therefore may discuss prescribing options from the point of view of tertiary care institutions, and university centres. The South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust publish the popular Maudsley guidelines. These are perhaps more pragmatic in nature, but include very low levels of evidence, including case series. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) is an independent member association which also publishes guidelines. These are published in the American Journal of Psychiatry and the latest guidelines were published in October 2010. All these bodies attempt to weigh their advice according to the level of evidence available and aim to provide clinical guidance in difficult situations. The burden on guiding organisations is to provide some direction and clarity in areas that are often unclear or controversial. Clinical guidelines are one method of providing support and guidance to busy clinicians. However, this clinician-centered approach has limitations. The onus is on the authors of the guidance to provide ever-more treatment options. This may mean that conclusions about the efficacy of medications is overstated or the limitations of the literature not fully explored in explanatory notes.

Use of treatment algorithms for depression

Depression continues to be a treatment challenge for many physicians-psychiatrists and primary care physicians alike-in part because of the nature of the disorder, but also because of the wide variety of medications and other treatments available, each with a distinct efficacy and safety profile. One way of negotiating treatment decisions is to use treatment guidelines and algorithms. This Commentary, which appears in the September 2006 issue of The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (2006;67:1458-1465), provides the primary care clinician with insight into the pros and cons of using treatment algorithms to guide the treatment of depression. -Larry Culpepper, M.D.

Therapeutic options in treatment-resistant depression

The phenomenon of treatment-resistant depression (TRD), described as the occurrence of an inadequate response after an adequate treatment with antidepressant agents (in terms of dose, duration, and adherence), is very common in clinical practice. It has been broadly defined in the context of unipolar major depression, but alternative definitions for bipolar depression have also been suggested. In both cases, there is a remarkable lack of consensus amongst professionals concerning its operative definition. A relatively wide variety of treatment options for unipolar TRD are available, whilst the evidence is very scanty for bipolar TRD. TRD is associated to poor clinical, functional, and social outcomes. Several novel therapeutic options are currently being investigated as promising alternatives, targeting the neurotransmitter system outside of the standard monoamine hypothesis. Augmentation or combination with lithium or atypical antipsychotics appears as a valid option for both conditions, and the same occurs with electroconvulsive therapy. Other non-pharmacological strategies such as deep brain stimulation may be promising alternatives for the future. The use of cognitive behaviour therapy is recommended for unipolar TRD, but there is no evidence supporting its use in bipolar TRD.

Treatment-resistant depression in adolescents: review and updates on clinical management

Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) in adolescents is prevalent and impairing. We here review the definition, prevalence, clinical significance, risk factors, and management of TRD in adolescents. Risk factors associated with TRD include characteristics of depression (severity, level of hopelessness, and suicidal ideation), psychiatric and medical comorbidities, environmental factors (family conflict, maternal depression, and history of abuse), and pharmacokinetics and other biomarkers. Management options include review of the adequacy of the initial treatment, re-assessment for the above-noted factors that might predispose to treatment resistance, switching antidepressants, and augmentation with medication or psychotherapy. Other modalities, such as electroconvulsive therapy, vagal nerve stimulation, and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, are also reviewed.

Antidepressant combinations: widely used, but far from empirically validated

This paper reviews the evidence on combining antidepressants (ADs) for treatment of major depressive disorder. Although widely used and usually safe, the efficacy of even the most widely prescribed combinations of ADs has not been established by properly controlled, adequately powered, clinical trials. This stands in contrast to several adjunctive strategies for AD nonresponders, including adjunctive lithium, thyroid hormone, or newer-generation antipsychotics. The wide use of AD combinations no doubt reflects the limited efficacy of commonly used ADs and the unmet need for effective strategies for patients with treatment-resistant depression. Although of unproven efficacy, potential merits of combining selected ADs include: (1) avoiding discontinuation-emergent symptoms and cross-titration schedules, (2) at worst, the second AD should be as effective in combination as it would be as a monotherapy following a switch, and (3) the possibility of complementary neuropharmacologic effects that may enhance efficacy or improve tolerability. The dearth of controlled studies of such a commonly used strategy for such a highly prevalent condition is symptomatic of shortcomings in the way clinically relevant research is funded, points to the need for industry-academic-federal collaborations, and underscores the need for large, practice-based, research groups that can efficiently complete publicly funded studies of high public health impact.

Antidepressant monotherapy and combination of antidepressants in the treatment of resistant depression in current clinical practice: A retrospective study

Abstract Objectives. The aim of this study was to compare efficacy of antidepressant monotherapies and combinations of antidepressants in the treatment of resistant patients in current clinical practice. Methods. We reviewed chart documents of resistant depressive inpatients treated at least 4 weeks with a new treatment. Depressive symptoms and clinical status were assessed using Montgomery and Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Beck Depression Inventory-Short Form and Clinical Global Impression at the baseline, week 2 and in the end of treatment. Results. We identified 81 patients (27 with combinations and 51 with monotherapies) that were suitable for analyses. The combination group achieved higher reduction of MADRS score (14.6 vs 10.2 pts., p=0.02) and response rate (≥ 50% reduction of MADRS, 67% vs 39%, p=0.03). Number needed to treat for response was 4. Conclusions. Based on our results, we suggest that combination of antidepressants might be more effective than monotherapy in clinical practice.

The Impact of Residual Symptoms in Major Depression

The current definition of remission from major depressive disorder does not fully take into account all aspects of patient recovery. Residual symptoms of depression are very common in patients who are classified as being in remission. Patients with residual symptoms are at increased risk of functional and interpersonal impairments, and are at high risk for recurrence of depression. This article discusses the incidence of residual symptoms of depression, as well as the risks and consequences of these symptoms, and will review the state of current treatment.

Pharmacologic approaches to treatment resistant depression: a re-examination for the modern era

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is common and debilitating. Initial treatment is often insufficient to achieve full remission in a given depressive episode, resulting in more frequent episodes, worsened severity, and major disability.

AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW

This review surveys literature on the diagnosis and pharmacological management of TRD in light of recent developments. Evidence regarding commonly used treatment options is critically examined and key recommendations are offered. The review ends by considering drugs acting on the melatonin, acetylcholine, and glutamate systems that hold promise as future options for TRD.

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

Recent trends and research findings have impacted how the evidence supporting different approaches to TRD should be evaluated. For example, many earlier TRD studies employed tricyclics as the primary antidepressant, but tricyclics have now been superseded by selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in routine clinical practice. This deficiency has been addressed by the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study, the largest effectiveness study of TRD ever conducted. However, design characteristics of the STAR*D study preclude simple comparisons with earlier studies.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

A shortcoming of most treatment recommendations for TRD is their reliance on older studies that do not reflect the current preeminence of SSRIs in clinical practice. This has distorted the prioritization of pharmacological strategies for TRD. Efforts to correct this distortion with effectiveness research, designed to better reflect current practice trends, require critical consideration of the strengths and limitations of this approach.

An algorithm for the pharmacological treatment of depression

OBJECTIVE

Non-response to treatment with antidepressants (AD) is a clinical problem.

METHOD

The algorithm for pharmacological treatment of the Dutch multidisciplinary guideline for depression is compared with four other algorithms.

RESULTS

The Dutch algorithm consists of five subsequent steps. Treatment is started with one out of many optional ADs (step 1); in case of non-response after 4-10 weeks, best evidence is for switching to another AD (step 2); next step is augmentation with lithium as the best option (step 3); the next step is a monoamine oxidase inhibitor (MAOI) (step 4); and finally electroconvulsive therapy (step 5). There are major differences with other algorithms regarding timing of augmentation step, best agents for augmentation and role of MAOI.

CONCLUSION

Algorithms for AD treatment vary according to national and local preferences. Although the evidence for most of the treatment strategies is rather meagre, an AD algorithm appears to be an useful instrument in clinical practice.

Therapeutic options for treatment-resistant depression

Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) presents major challenges for both patients and clinicians. There is no universally accepted definition of TRD, but results from the US National Institute of Mental Health's (NIMH) STAR*D (Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression) programme indicate that after the failure of two treatment trials, the chances of remission decrease significantly. Several pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments for TRD may be considered when optimized (adequate dose and duration) therapy has not produced a successful outcome and a patient is classified as resistant to treatment. Nonpharmacological strategies include psychotherapy (often in conjunction with pharmacotherapy), electroconvulsive therapy and vagus nerve stimulation. The US FDA recently approved vagus nerve stimulation as adjunctive therapy (after four prior treatment failures); however, its benefits are seen only after prolonged (up to 1 year) use. Other nonpharmacological options, such as repetitive transcranial stimulation, deep brain stimulation or psychosurgery, remain experimental and are not widely available. Pharmacological treatments of TRD can be grouped in two main categories: 'switching' or 'combining'. In the first, treatment is switched within and between classes of compounds. The benefits of switching include avoidance of polypharmacy, a narrower range of treatment-emergent adverse events and lower costs. An inherent disadvantage of any switching strategy is that partial treatment responses resulting from the initial treatment might be lost by its discontinuation in favour of another medication trial. Monotherapy switches have also been shown to have limited effectiveness in achieving remission. The advantage of combination strategies is the potential to build upon achieved improvements; they are generally recommended if partial response was achieved with the current treatment trial. Various non-antidepressant augmenting agents, such as lithium and thyroid hormones, are well studied, although not commonly used. There is also evidence of efficacy and increasing use of atypical antipsychotics in combination with antidepressants, for example, olanzapine in combination with fluoxetine (OFC) or augmentation with aripiprazole. The disadvantages of a combination strategy include multiple medications, a broader range of treatment-emergent adverse events and higher costs. Several experimental pharmaceutical treatment alternatives for TRD are also being explored in combination with antidepressants or as monotherapy. These less studied alternative compounds include pindolol, inositol, CNS stimulants, hormones, herbal supplements, omega-3 fatty acids, S-adenosyl-L-methionine, folic acid, lamotrigine, modafinil, riluzole and topiramate. In summary, despite an increasing variety of choices for the treatment of TRD, this condition remains universally undefined and represents an area of unmet medical need. There are few known approved pharmacological agents for TRD (aripiprazole and OFC) and overall outcomes remain poor. This might be an indication that depression itself is a heterogeneous condition with a great diversity of pathologies, highlighting the need for careful evaluation of individuals with depressive symptoms who are unresponsive to treatment. Clearly, more research is needed to provide clinicians with better guidance in making those treatment decisions--especially in light of accumulating evidence that the longer patients are unsuccessfully treated, the worse their long-term prognosis tends to be.

Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) clinical guidelines for the management of major depressive disorder in adults. III. Pharmacotherapy

BACKGROUND

In 2001, the Canadian Psychiatric Association and the Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) partnered to produce evidence-based clinical guidelines for the treatment of depressive disorders. A revision of these guidelines was undertaken by CANMAT in 2008-2009 to reflect advances in the field.

METHODS

The CANMAT guidelines are based on a question-answer format to enhance accessibility to clinicians. An evidence-based format was used with updated systematic reviews of the literature and recommendations were graded according to Level of Evidence using pre-defined criteria. Lines of Treatment were identified based on criteria that included Levels of Evidence and expert clinical support. This section on "Pharmacotherapy" is one of 5 guideline articles.

RESULTS

Despite emerging data on efficacy and tolerability differences amongst newer antidepressants, variability in patient response precludes identification of specific first choice medications for all patients. All second-generation antidepressants have Level 1 evidence to support efficacy and tolerability and most are considered first-line treatments for MDD. First-generation tricyclic and monoamine oxidase inhibitor antidepressants are not the focus of these guidelines but generally are considered second- or third-line treatments. For inadequate or incomplete response, there is Level 1 evidence for switching strategies and for add-on strategies including lithium and atypical antipsychotics.

LIMITATIONS

Most of the evidence is based on trials for registration and may not reflect real-world effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Second-generation antidepressants are safe, effective and well tolerated treatments for MDD in adults. Evidence-based switching and add-on strategies can be used to optimize response in MDD that is inadequately responsive to monotherapy.

Evidence why paroxetine dose escalation is not effective in major depressive disorder: a randomized controlled trial with assessment of serotonin transporter occupancy

Dose escalation is often used in depressed patients who fail to respond to standard doses of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, but clinical efficacy is equivocal. We aimed to reassess the efficacy of paroxetine dose escalation and quantify whether paroxetine dose escalation increases occupancy of the serotonin transporter (SERT) more than placebo dose escalation in a randomized controlled trial. We recruited 107 nonpsychotic, unipolar depressed outpatients (18-70 years; Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS(17)) >18) from primary care and psychiatric outpatient departments. After 6 weeks, open-label paroxetine 20 mg per day (T0), nonresponding patients (HDRS(17) decrease <50%; n=60) were randomized to double-blind paroxetine (30-50 mg per day as tolerable) or placebo dose escalation (paroxetine 20 mg per day+placebo). Patients were followed until 6 weeks after randomization (T1). Forty-nine patients, drug free at study entry, underwent single-photon emission-computed tomography (SPECT) scanning before treatment and were scanned repeatedly at T0 and T1. Paroxetine serum concentrations and SERT occupancy were determined at T0 and T1 (n=32). We terminated the dose-escalation trial after an interim analysis. Thirty nonresponding patients were randomized to paroxetine (46.7+/-5.5 mg per day), 27 to placebo dose escalation. Response rates were 10/30 (33.3%) and 10/27 (37.0%), respectively. Repeated measurement analyses showed no significant effect for treatment (p=0.88, exceeding a priori stopping rules for futility (p>0.5)). Overall dropout was higher for placebo (26.7%) than paroxetine (3.3%; p=0.03). Paroxetine dose escalation increased paroxetine serum concentrations (p<0.001). SPECT measurements (12 patients randomized to paroxetine (46.9+/-4.8 mg) and 14 to placebo dose escalation) showed no significant increase of midbrain SERT occupancy (2.5+/-26.4%, paroxetine; 3.1+/-25.8% placebo; p=0.687) nor in diencephalon (p=0.529). Paroxetine dose escalation in depressed patients has no clinical benefit over placebo dose escalation. This is explained by the absence of significant increases of SERT occupancy by paroxetine dose escalation, despite increased paroxetine serum concentrations (ISRCTN44111488).

Use of atypical antipsychotics for treatment-resistant major depressive disorder

Despite the progressive increase in the number of pharmacologic agents with potential antidepressant activity, many patients suffering from major depressive disorder (MDD) continue to be symptomatic. Clearly, an urgent need exists to develop safer, better tolerated, and more effective treatments for MDD. Use of atypical antipsychotic agents as adjunctive treatment for treatment-resistant MDD (TRD) represents one such effort toward novel pharmacotherapy development. Atypical antipsychotic agents have been hypothesized to be beneficial in treating mood disorders, including TRD, as a result of their complex mechanisms of action. After an initial series of positive case reports, series, and small clinical trials, subsequent larger-scale projects have yielded conflicting results. However, more recently, larger-scale clinical trials have supported the effectiveness of at least some of these medications. This review summarizes the existing data regarding the effectiveness of these medications in treating TRD, including biochemical rationale and clinical data.

The primacy of mania: a reconsideration of mood disorders

In contemporary psychiatry, depression and mania are conceived as different entities. They may occur together, as in bipolar disorder, or they may occur separately, as in unipolar depression. This view is partly based on a narrow definition of mania and a rather broad definition of depression. Generally, depression is seen as more prominent, common, and problematic; while mania appears uncommon and treatment-responsive. We suggest a reversal: mania viewed broadly, not as simply episodic euphoria plus hyperactivity, but a wide range of excitatory behaviors; and depression seen more narrowly. Further, using pharmacological and clinical evidence, and in contrast to previous theories of mania interpreted as a flight from depression, we propose the primacy of mania hypothesis (PM): depression is a consequence of the excitatory processes of mania. If correct, current treatment of depressive illness needs revision. Rather than directly lifting mood with antidepressants, the aim would be to suppress manic-like excitation, with depression being secondarily prevented. Potential objections to, and empirical tests of, the PM hypothesis are discussed.

Evidence-based guidelines for treating depressive disorders with antidepressants: a revision of the 2000 British Association for Psychopharmacology guidelines

A revision of the 2000 British Association for Psychopharmacology evidence-based guidelines for treating depressive disorders with antidepressants was undertaken to incorporate new evidence and to update the recommendations where appropriate. A consensus meeting involving experts in depressive disorders and their management was held in May 2006. Key areas in treating depression were reviewed, and the strength of evidence and clinical implications were considered. The guidelines were drawn up after extensive feedback from participants and interested parties. A literature review is provided, which identifies the quality of evidence to inform the recommendations, the strength of which are based on the level of evidence. These guidelines cover the nature and detection of depressive disorders, acute treatment with antidepressant drugs, choice of drug versus alternative treatment, practical issues in prescribing and management, next-step treatment, relapse prevention, treatment of relapse, and stopping treatment.

Restoring melancholia in the classification of mood disorders

The present DSM criteria for major depression poorly identify samples for treatment selection, prognosis, and assessments of pathophysiology. Melancholia, in contrast, is a disorder with definable clinical signs that can be verified by laboratory tests and treatment response. It identifies more specific populations than the present system and deserves individual identification in psychiatric classification. Its re-introduction will refine diagnosis, prognosis, treatment selection, and studies of pathophysiology of a large segment of the psychiatrically ill.

Response to lithium augmentation in depression is associated with the glycogen synthase kinase 3-beta -50T/C single nucleotide polymorphism

BACKGROUND

Glycogen synthase kinase 3-beta (GSK3B) is a serine/threonine kinase which is directly inhibited by lithium. A -50T/C single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) localized within the promoter region of the GSK3B gene has previously been shown to be associated with response to lithium prophylaxis in bipolar disorder. This study investigates the association of the GSK3B -50T/C SNP and response to lithium augmentation in acutely depressed antidepressant nonresponders.

METHODS

Eighty-one patients who had not responded to at least one adequate trial of antidepressant monotherapy underwent a standardized trial of lithium augmentation for up to 8 weeks. We genotyped for the GSK3B -50T/C SNP using polymerase chain reaction and restriction fragment length polymorphism methods and investigated the association with remission.

RESULTS

The allele frequencies in our sample were CC 14.8%, CT 48.2% and TT 37% (no deviation from the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium). Carriers of the C-allele of the -50T/C SNP showed a significantly better response to lithium augmentation (hazard ratio: 2.70, p = .007), with a mean remission rate of 56.25% after 4 weeks compared to 31% in patients with the TT-genotype (chi(2) = 4.1; p = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results support the finding of recent studies demonstrating a superior response of C-allele carriers with bipolar disorder to lithium prophylaxis.

Augmentation strategies for treatment-resistant depression: a literature review

BACKGROUND

The large majority of depressed patients fail to remit on the first antidepressant prescribed. These patients with residual symptoms have higher relapse rates and poorer outcomes than those who remit. Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is a therapeutic challenge for the clinician. Augmentation pharmacotherapy refers to the addition of drugs that are not standard antidepressants in order to enhance the effect of a classical antidepressant drug. The aim of this paper was to review the available evidence on the various augmenting agents that have been tested for efficacy in TRD.

METHODS

Electronic databases and relevant textbooks were searched and the information retrieved was integrated in this review.

RESULTS

Although augmentation strategies have been tested with various pharmacological agents, there are few controlled studies published. Lithium, triiodothyronine (T3), buspirone and pindolol have been most widely studied. Other agents include dopaminergic agents, atypical antipsychotics, psychostimulants, benzodiazepines/hypnotics, hormones and anticonvulsants.

CONCLUSION

The augmentation therapy with the best evidence was the lithium-antidepressant combination, especially in patients not responding to tricyclic agents. However, good results have also been reported with augmentation strategies involving T3 and buspirone.

Combined treatments for major depression

Major depression is a chronic disorder with a high morbidity and mortality. Approved treatment for major depression at present includes monotherapy with antidepressants of different pharmacologic classes. There is increasingly widespread use of two other options: augmentation, the addition to an antidepressant of a second compound that is not an antidepressant when used alone; and combination, which is the use of two antidepressants concurrently to enhance or accelerate response. This review focuses on the data available to support these various augmentation and combination treatments.

Major depressive disorder with anger attacks and cardiovascular risk factors

OBJECTIVE

Depression and anger have been separately associated with cardiovascular risk factors. We investigated if major depressive disorder (MDD) with concomitant anger attacks was associated with cardiovascular risk factors.

METHOD

We measured total serum cholesterol, glycemia, resting blood pressure, and smoking parameters in 333 (52.9% women) MDD nonpsychotic outpatients, mean age of 39.4 years. MDD was diagnosed with the Structured Clinical Interview (SCID) in accordance with the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition, Revised (DSM-III-R). The presence of anger attacks was established with the Massachusetts General Hospital Anger Attacks Questionnaire.

RESULTS

In a logistic regression analysis, anger attacks were independently associated with cholesterol levels > or = 200 mg/dL (odds ratio [OR], 2.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-3.94) and years of smoking > 11 (OR, 2.59; 95% CI, 1.32-5.04).

CONCLUSIONS

MDD with anger attacks was significantly associated with increased cholesterol levels and years of smoking.