Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Aripiprazole Versus Bupropion Augmentation in Patients With Major Depressive Disorder Unresponsive to Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors: A Randomized, Prospective, Open-Label Study

Efficacy and safety of aripiprazole or bupropion augmentation and switching in patients with treatment-resistant depression or major depressive disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To report the first and largest systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole or bupropion augmentation and switching in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) or major depressive disorder(MDD).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature retrieval via PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane until April 2023 for RCT, which evaluated the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole or bupropion augmentation and switching for patients with TRD or MDD. Outcomes measured were changes in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), response and remission rate, and serious adverse events.

RESULTS

Five RCTs, including 4480 patients, were included for meta-analysis. Among them, two RCTs were rated as "high risk" in three aspects (allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel and blinding of outcome assessment) because of the non-blind method, and the quality evaluation of the remaining works of literature was "low risk". Augmentation treatment with Aripiprazole (A-ARI) was associated with a significant higher response rate compared with augmentation treatment with bupropion (A-BUP) (RR: 1.15; 95% CI: 1.05, 1.25; P = 0.0007; I2 = 23%). Besides, A-ARI had a significant higher remission rate compared with switching to bupropion (S-BUP) (RR: 1.22; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.49; P = 0.05; I2 = 59%) and A-BUP had a significant higher remission rate compared with S-BUP (RR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.06, 1.36; P = 0.0004; I2 = 0%). In addition, there was no significant difference in remission rate(RR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.94, 1.17; P = 0.42; I2 = 33%), improvement of MADRS(WMD: -2.07; 95% CI: -5.84, 1.70; P = 0.28; I2 = 70%) between A-ARI and A-BUP. No significant difference was observed in adverse events and serious adverse events among the three treatment strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

A-ARI may be a better comprehensive antidepressant treatment strategy than A-BUP or S-BUP for patients with TRD or MDD. More large-scale, multi-center, double-blind RCTs are needed to further evaluated the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole or bupropion augmentation and switching treatment strategies.

Nonpharmacologic and Pharmacologic Treatments of Adult Patients With Major Depressive Disorder: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis for a Clinical Guideline by the American College of Physicians

BACKGROUND

Primary care patients and clinicians may prefer alternative options to second-generation antidepressants for major depressive disorder (MDD).

PURPOSE

To compare the benefits and harms of nonpharmacologic treatments with second-generation antidepressants as first-step interventions for acute MDD, and to compare second-step treatment strategies for patients who did not achieve remission after an initial attempt with antidepressants.

DATA SOURCES

English-language studies from several electronic databases from 1 January 1990 to 8 August 2022, trial registries, gray literature databases, and reference lists to identify unpublished research.

STUDY SELECTION

2 investigators independently selected randomized trials of at least 6 weeks' duration.

DATA EXTRACTION

Reviewers abstracted data about study design and conduct, participants, interventions, and outcomes. They dually rated the risk of bias of studies and the certainty of evidence for outcomes of interest.

DATA SYNTHESIS

65 randomized trials met the inclusion criteria; eligible data from nonrandomized studies were not found. Meta-analyses and network meta-analyses indicated similar benefits of most nonpharmacologic treatments and antidepressants as first-step treatments. Antidepressants had higher risks for discontinuation because of adverse events than most other treatments. For second-step therapies, different switching and augmentation strategies provided similar symptomatic relief. The certainty of evidence for most comparisons is low; findings should be interpreted cautiously.

LIMITATIONS

Many studies had methodological limitations or dosing inequalities; publication bias might have affected some comparisons. In some cases, conclusions could not be drawn because of insufficient evidence.

CONCLUSION

Although benefits seem to be similar among first- and second-step MDD treatments, the certainty of evidence is low for most comparisons. Clinicians and patients should focus on options with the most reliable evidence and take adverse event profiles and patient preferences into consideration.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42020204703).

Aripiprazole as First-Line Therapy for Late-Life Depression: A Case Note Review

BACKGROUND

Aripiprazole, structurally considered a third-generation antipsychotic agent, is an effective adjuvant strategy for managing treatment-resistant depression. It has been used successfully as an add-on agent in late-life depression (LLD), but there are no controlled trials on its use as first-line therapy, either alone or in combination with an antidepressant.

METHODS

This is a case note review of aripiprazole prescribed to outpatients with LLD as a first-line therapy either in combination with an antidepressant or as a monotherapy. The local ethics committee approved the audit. Case notes of subjects with Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression scores of ≥11 and with at least 1 follow-up visit were included in the review. Remission was defined as the first occurrence of achieving a Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score of <10.

RESULTS

Case notes of 54 subjects (mean age, 68.6 ± 6.9 years) were included, 52 of whom had unipolar depression. Aripiprazole alone was prescribed in 21 subjects, and with an antidepressant in the remaining subjects. The overall remission rate was 59% over 21 weeks, and in the remitted subjects (n = 32), the cumulative remission rate increased from 22% at week 2 to 82% at week 10. No subject discontinued treatment because of poor tolerability or serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Aripiprazole was found to be an effective first-line antidepressant in LLD. The remission rates in the present study were considerably higher than the published literature on antidepressant monotherapy in fresh episodes of LLD. This warrants controlled trials of aripiprazole as a first-line antidepressant for this disease entity.

Pretreatment anxious depression as a predictor of side effect frequency and severity in escitalopram and aripiprazole adjunctive therapy

OBJECTIVE

To report side effect frequency and severity in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) receiving escitalopram and aripiprazole adjunctive therapy and to examine whether pretreatment anxious depression is associated with the number and presence of specific side effects.

METHODS

188 of the 211 trial participants provided information on side effects during treatment with escitalopram (10-20 mg) for 8 weeks, and nonresponders received further augmentation on aripiprazole (2-10 mg) adjunctive therapy for another 8 weeks, whereas responders remained on escitalopram. Participants completed the Toronto Side Effects Scale at weeks 2, 4, 10, and 12. Covariate-adjusted negative binomial regression and Wilcoxon tests examined the association between anxious depression (GAD-7 ≥ 10) and number of side effects. Covariate-adjusted logistic regression and chi-square tests explored the association between anxious depression and specific side effects.

RESULTS

For both therapies, the most frequent side effects were also the most severe. They mostly related to the central nervous system (CNS) (i.e., drowsiness and nervousness). Between baseline and week 2, the number of side effects participants experienced (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.38, p = .010) or had trouble with (IRR = 1.34, p = .026) was significantly higher among those with anxious depression for escitalopram but not adjunctive aripiprazole. Further, odds of experiencing and having trouble with nervousness and agitation were also significantly higher in anxious depression for escitalopram only (p < .05).

CONCLUSION

Patients on escitalopram and aripiprazole adjunctive therapy may experience and have trouble with CNS side effects. Pretreatment anxious depression may predispose escitalopram recipients with MDD to developing side effects, especially those related to anxiety.

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.

Sexual dysfunction with major depressive disorder and antidepressant treatments: impact, assessment, and management

INTRODUCTION

Sexual dysfunction (SD) is a symptom of depression in ≈70% of patients presenting with major depressive disorder (MDD). Antidepressant medications (AD) and adjunctive treatments may further contribute to SD and complicate evaluation and management.

AREAS COVERED

A systematic literature search of PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE and Cochrane databases for MDD, SD, classes of antidepressants, etc. was performed with a focus on 2014 to June 2021. SSRIs are associated with 70% treatment-emergent sexual dysfunction (TESD), SNRIs and tricyclics have rates of TESD of 40 - 45%, and antidepressant medications without SRI effects or with additional unique mechanisms of action have rates similar to placebo (<10%). Appropriate assessment at baseline and throughout treatment, consideration of patient preferences in prescribing, addressing modifiable factors (comorbid medical/psychiatric conditions, substances, relationship difficulties), and utilizing management strategies of switching to an AD with less SD, adding an antidote/adjunctive therapy or lowering the dose are discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

MDD and antidepressant treatment contribute to SD in a high percentage of patients. Treating to remission reduces SD as a symptom of depression. Frequent assessment and targeted management strategies may be effective in preventing or addressing SD. Secondary outcomes like impact on adherence, relationships and self-image should also be considered.

Use of Contrave, Naltrexone with Bupropion, Bupropion, or Naltrexone and Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events: A Systematic Literature Review

Naltrexone/Bupropion extended release (ER; Contrave) is an extended-release, fixed-dose combination medication of naltrexone (8 mg) and bupropion (90 mg) for patients with obesity or overweight with at least one weight-related comorbidity. Obese and overweight patients with or without comorbidities are at increased cardiovascular (CV) risk. Due to the increased CV risk profile in this patient population, this systematic literature review was conducted to assess human studies reporting major adverse CV events (MACE) and other CV events. A priori eligibility criteria included clinical studies (randomized and observational) published from January 1, 2012, to September 30, 2021, with data comparing users of naltrexone/bupropion ER, naltrexone with bupropion, bupropion without naltrexone, or naltrexone without bupropion versus comparator groups (placebo or other treatments), and with sufficient information to determine the frequency of MACE or other CV adverse events by treatment group. Among 2539 English-language articles identified, 70 articles met the eligibility criteria: seven studies of naltrexone/bupropion ER or naltrexone with bupropion, 32 studies of bupropion, and 31 studies of naltrexone. No studies reported an increased risk of MACE among users of naltrexone/bupropion ER, naltrexone with bupropion, or bupropion or naltrexone individually compared with nonusers. One-half of the available studies (n = 35) reported no (zero) CV events and the other half (n = 35) reported that a non-zero frequency of CV events occurred. Four studies reported data on MACE, including three studies of bupropion and one study of naltrexone/bupropion ER. For composite MACE and its components, the difference in proportions between naltrexone/bupropion ER-, bupropion-, or naltrexone-treated patients compared with active comparators or placebo-treated patients did not exceed 2.5%. In conclusion, the available human evidence does not indicate an increased risk of CV events or MACE following use of naltrexone/bupropion ER, naltrexone with bupropion, or the individual components.

Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors and Clozapine: Clinically Relevant Interactions and Considerations

The monoamine hypothesis of depression attributes the symptoms of major depressive disorders to imbalances of serotonin, noradrenaline, and dopamine in the limbic areas of the brain. The preferential targeting of serotonin receptor (SERT) by selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) has offered an opportunity to reduce the range of these side effects and improve patient adherence to pharmacotherapy. Clozapine remains an effective drug against treatment-resistant schizophrenia, defined as failing treatment with at least two different antipsychotic medications. Patients with schizophrenia who display a constellation of negative symptoms respond poorly to antipsychotic monotherapy. Negative symptoms include the diminution of motivation, interest, or expression. Conversely to the depressive symptomology of interest presently, supplementation of antipsychotics with SSRIs in schizophrenic patients with negative symptoms lead to synergistic improvements in the function of these patients. Fluvoxamine is one of the most potent inhibitors of CYP1A2 and can lead to an increase in clozapine levels. Similar increases in serum clozapine were detected in two patients taking sertraline. However, studies have been contradictory as well, showing no such increases, which are worrying. Clinicians should be aware that clozapine levels should be monitored with any coadministration with SSRIs.

Extrapyramidal reactions following treatment with antidepressants: Results of the AMSP multinational drug surveillance programme

Objectives: Extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) are a common adverse effect of antipsychotics. However, there are case reports describing EPS following treatment with antidepressants. It is not fully understood how antidepressants cause EPS, but a serotonergic input to dopaminergic pathways is a probable mechanism of action.Methods: Data from a multicenter drug-surveillance programme (AMSP, 'drug safety in psychiatry') which systemically documents severe drug reactions during psychiatric inpatient admissions, were reviewed to assess for EPS associated with antidepressant treatment. We identified 15 such cases, which were studied to detect similarities and to characterise risk factors.Results: We report on 15 patients with EPS following antidepressant-therapy between 1994 and 2016. EPS frequently occurred with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) treatment alone (7/15 cases) or concomitant SSRI treatment (6/15 cases). EPS were most frequent with escitalopram-treatment (5 cases). The most common EPS was atypical dyskinesia (6/15 cases) followed by akathisia (4/15 cases). The mean age of onset for EPS was 54.93 years (SD 17.9). EPS occurred at any dosage and equally often in men and women.Conclusions: Our results highlight the possibility of EPS as an important, although uncommon, adverse effect of antidepressants. Clinicians should beware of this adverse effect and monitor early warning signs carefully.

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.

Predictors of response and remission in a naturalistic inpatient sample undergoing multimodal treatment for depression

BACKGROUND

Many depressed patients do not achieve response or remission despite adequate treatment. Identifying predictors of outcome can contribute to developing therapeutic algorithms for difficult-to-treat depression. Therefore, we examined clinical predictors of response and remission in a naturalistic inpatient sample undergoing multimodal treatment for depression.

METHODS

Three hundred and fifty-one consecutive inpatients admitted to a tertiary care university hospital (specialized psychiatry unit for treatment of unipolar and bipolar depression) between January 2014 and December 2016 were characterized by a set of sociodemographic and clinical variables. The predictive value of these variables for response (≥ 50% decrease from baseline Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score) and remission (MADRS score at discharge < 10) were explored using bivariate analysis and logistic regression.

RESULTS

Greater symptom severity and fewer psychotropic medications at the time of admission predicted response. Remission rates were higher for patients with non-chronic depression, higher number of previous depressive episodes, fewer psychotropic medications and less severe depression at admission.

LIMITATIONS

This was a retrospective study without a control group. The sample was drawn from a single inpatient ward specialized for difficult-to-treat depression.

CONCLUSIONS

Greater baseline depression severity might be a proxy for a less chronic course of depression thereby explaining its association with greater response rates. Fewer episodes in the past and polypharmacy could indicate treatment-resistance and chronicity, contributing to lower remission rates. Therefore, preventing chronicity should be a central aim of depression treatment.

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

AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

Bupropion Augmentation in a Case of Compulsive Buying Disorder

BACKGROUND

Compulsive buying disorder (CBD) is a condition characterized by excessive preoccupations, impulses, and behaviors regarding buying, resulting in serious psychological, social, and financial problems. Even though it has not been included in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, "behavioral addictions" section, CBD is a hot topic in current clinical psychiatry, because of its relevant prevalence (at least 5% in adult populations) and severe effect on quality of life.The CBD shares some clinical features with substance-related and behavioral addictions, impulse control disorders, and obsessive compulsive disorder, and it is often comorbid with other psychiatric illnesses (especially depressive and anxiety disorders). The treatment of CBD is therefore difficult, and clear therapeutic guidelines are not yet available. Treating the comorbid disorders as the first-line approach, or combining drugs with different pharmacodynamic profiles, has been suggested to address this challenging condition.

CASE

A 60-year-old woman affected by a severe form of CBD with comorbid major depressive disorder, resistant/intolerant to previous selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor treatments and only partially responder to mirtazapine, achieved a good clinical improvement adding bupropion.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining 2 agents with different pharmacological profiles and mechanisms of action, such as bupropion and mirtazapine, could be a useful strategy in the management of complex CBD cases.