Lithium and triiodothyronine augmentation of antidepressants

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.

Pharmacological Augmentation in Unipolar Depression: A Guide to the Guidelines

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Hormonal Treatments for Major Depressive Disorder: State of the Art

Major depressive disorder is a common psychiatric disorder associated with marked suffering, morbidity, mortality, and cost. The World Health Organization projects that by 2030, major depression will be the leading cause of disease burden worldwide. While numerous treatments for major depression exist, many patients do not respond adequately to traditional antidepressants. Thus, more effective treatments for major depression are needed, and targeting certain hormonal systems is a conceptually based approach that has shown promise in the treatment of this disorder. A number of hormones and hormone-manipulating compounds have been evaluated as monotherapies or adjunctive treatments for major depression, with therapeutic actions attributable not only to the modulation of endocrine systems in the periphery but also to the CNS effects of hormones on non-endocrine brain circuitry. The authors describe the physiology of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA), hypothalamic-pituitary thyroid (HPT), and hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal (HPG) axes and review the evidence for selected hormone-based interventions for the treatment of depression in order to provide an update on the state of this field for clinicians and researchers. The review focuses on the HPA axis-based interventions of corticotropin-releasing factor antagonists and the glucocorticoid receptor antagonist mifepristone, the HPT axis-based treatments of thyroid hormones (T₃ and T₄), and the HPG axis-based treatments of estrogen replacement therapy, the progesterone derivative allopregnanolone, and testosterone. While some treatments have largely failed to translate from preclinical studies, others have shown promising initial results and represent active fields of study in the search for novel effective treatments for major depression.

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.

The identification, assessment and management of difficult-to-treat depression: An international consensus statement

BACKGROUND

Many depressed patients are not able to achieve or sustain symptom remission despite serial treatment trials - often termed "treatment resistant depression". A broader, perhaps more empathic concept of "difficult-to-treat depression" (DTD) was considered.

METHODS

A consensus group discussed the definition, clinical recognition, assessment and management implications of the DTD heuristic.

RESULTS

The group proposed that DTD be defined as "depression that continues to cause significant burden despite usual treatment efforts". All depression management should include a thorough initial assessment. When DTD is recognized, a regular reassessment that employs a multi-dimensional framework to identify addressable barriers to successful treatment (including patient-, illness- and treatment-related factors) is advised, along with specific recommendations for addressing these factors. The emphasis of treatment, in the first instance, shifts from a goal of remission to optimal symptom control, daily psychosocial functional and quality of life, based on a patient-centred approach with shared decision-making to enhance the timely consideration of all treatment options (including pharmacotherapy, psychotherapy, neurostimulation, etc.) to optimize outcomes when sustained remission is elusive.

LIMITATIONS

The recommended definition and management of DTD is based largely on expert consensus. While DTD would seem to have clinical utility, its specificity and objectivity may be insufficient to define clinical populations for regulatory trial purposes, though DTD could define populations for service provision or phase 4 trials.

CONCLUSIONS

DTD provides a clinically useful conceptualization that implies a search for and remediation of specific patient-, illness- and treatment obstacles to optimizing outcomes of relevance to patients.

Thyroid hormone treatment in the management of treatment-resistant unipolar depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Treatment with thyroid hormones is occasionally used in the management of treatment-resistant depression. However, the evidence supporting this treatment is not fully established. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on the effect of adjunctive thyroid hormone in the management of treatment-resistant unipolar depression and to provide a pooled estimate of its efficacy.

METHODS

The study is registered with PROSPERO (reg. no. CRD42018108088) and followed the PRISMA guidelines. Searches were carried out on June 24, 2019, in PubMed, EMBASE, and PsycINFO. Each record was screened independently by at least two reviewers. In instances of discrepancies, consensus was reached upon discussion. Pooled efficacy estimates were calculated based on response rates (decrease of ≥50% on the primary outcome measure) using random effect statistics.

RESULTS

The search yielded 1355 records. Based on the screening of these records, we identified 10 studies that met the inclusion criteria (total number of patients = 663). The comparison of response to thyroid hormones vs. placebo resulted in an odds ratio of 1.56 (95% CI: 0.50-4.84). Similarly, the comparison of response to thyroid hormones vs. lithium resulted in an odds ratio of 1.91 (95% CI: 0.85-4.26). Thus, adjunctive therapy with thyroid hormones was not superior to placebo or lithium in the management of treatment-resistant unipolar depression.

CONCLUSION

According to this review and meta-analysis, there is not sufficient evidence to support the use of adjunctive thyroid hormones for treatment-resistant unipolar depression.

Effect of lithium on suicide and mortality in mood disorders: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To assess if lithium treatment in patients with mood disorders, for instance depression, bipolar disorders, and schizoaffective disorders, has an effect on total mortality and suicide.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Total mortality. Secondary outcome was suicide.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov. Eligible trials were randomized double-blind trials comparing lithium with placebo in patients with mood disorders who were not already on lithium before randomization in order to avoid withdrawal effects in the placebo group.

DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS

Two researchers extracted data independently. Data were analysed with Review Manager 5.3 (Peto odds ratio).

RESULTS

We found 45 eligible studies. Only four studies reported any suicides or other deaths in the lithium or placebo group. There was a significant reduction in total mortality (two versus nine), odds ratio 0.28 (95% confidence interval 0.08 to 0.93). There was no statistically significant reduction in suicides, (none versus three), odds ratio 0.13 (0.01 to 1.27).

CONCLUSION

According to our study, lithium reduces total mortality in mood disorders but not suicide. Because of small numbers and unreliable data, the findings should be interpreted with caution.

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.

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.

The integrative management of treatment-resistant depression: a comprehensive review and perspectives

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorder is a prevalent and disabling illness. Notwithstanding numerous advances in the pharmacological treatment of depression, approximately 70% of patients do not remit after first-line antidepressant treatment.

METHODS

The MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov electronic databases were searched from inception to October 1, 2013, for randomized controlled trials (RCT), relevant open-label trials, meta-analyses and ongoing trials of pharmacological and psychotherapeutic approaches to treatment-resistant depression (TRD).

RESULTS

Switching to a different antidepressant is a useful option following nonresponse to a first-line agent. Although widely used in clinical practice, there is limited evidence to support antidepressant combination for TRD. Notwithstanding evidence for lithium or T3 augmentation to be successful in TRD, most studies were carried out when participants were treated with tricyclic antidepressants (TCA). Of the available strategies to augment the response to new-generation antidepressants, the use of some atypical antipsychotics is best supported by evidence. Several novel therapeutic options are currently discussed. Evidence suggests that cognitive therapy (CT) is an effective strategy for TRD.

CONCLUSIONS

The success of switching to a different antidepressant following a first-line agent is supported by evidence, but there is limited evidence for effective combination strategies. Lithium and T3 augmentation of TCA have the strongest evidence base for successful treatment of TRD. The use of augmentation of newer-generation antidepressants with atypical antipsychotics is supported by a growing evidence base. Current evidence supports CT as an effective strategy for TRD. There is a need for additional large-scale RCT of TRD. The development of new antidepressants targeting novel pathways opens a promising perspective for the management of TRD.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of lithium augmentation of tricyclic and second generation antidepressants in major depression

BACKGROUND

Lithium augmentation of antidepressants for treatment of unipolar major depression was one of the first adjunctive strategies based on a neuropharmacologic rationale. Randomized controlled trials supported its efficacy but most trials added lithium to tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs). Despite its efficacy, use of lithium augmentation remains infrequent. The current systematic review and meta-analysis examines the efficacy of lithium augmentation as an adjunct to second generation antidepressants as well as to TCAs and considers reasons for its infrequent use.

METHOD

A systematic search of Medline and the Cochrane Clinical Trials database was performed. Randomized, placebo-controlled trials of lithium augmentation were selected. A fixed-effects meta-analysis was performed. Odds ratios for response were calculated for each treatment-control contrast, for the trials grouped by type of initial antidepressant (TCA or second generation antidepressant), and as a meta-analytic summary for all treatments combined.

RESULTS

Nine trials that included 237 patients were selected. The odds ratio for response to lithium vs. placebo in all contrasts combined was 2.89 (95% CI 1.65, 5.05, z=3.72, p=0.0002). Heterogeneity was very low, I(2)=0%. Adjunctive lithium was effective with TCAs (7 contrasts) and with second generation agents (3 contrasts). Discontinuation due to adverse events was infrequent and did not differ between lithium and placebo.

LIMITATIONS

The meta-analysis is limited by the small size and number of trials and limited data for treatment resistant patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjunctive lithium appears to be as effective for second generation antidepressants as it was for the tricyclics.

Hormone treatment of depression

There is a well-established relationship between alterations of various hormonal systems and psychiatric disorders, both in endocrine and psychiatric patients. This has led to clinical and research studies examining the efficacy of the different hormones for treatment of depression. These data will be reviewed with particular regard to the thyroid, gonadal, pineal, and adrenal cortex hormones. The data generally provide limited, but varying evidence for the antidepressant efficacy of these hormones.

If at first you don't succeed: a review of the evidence for antidepressant augmentation, combination and switching strategies

Major depressive disorder is a common and disabling illness that leads to significant reductions in quality of life and considerable cost to society. Despite numerous advances in the pharmacological treatment of depression, many patients remain ill despite initial treatment. Beyond first-line treatment, current guidelines recommend either augmentation or switching of the initial antidepressant. In this narrative review, we summarize the data from randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses in order to concisely discuss how the impact of current research can be translated into clinical practice and, ultimately, into lasting improvements in patient outcomes. The augmentation strategies reviewed are lithium, thyroid hormone, pindolol, psychostimulants and second-generation antipsychotics. The data on switching from first-line antidepressants to other antidepressants are also reviewed, and include switching within the same class, switching to other first-line antidepressant classes and switching to less commonly prescribed antidepressants. Finally, the strategy of antidepressant combinations is examined. Overall, the strength of evidence supporting a trial of augmentation or a switch to a new agent is very similar, with remission rates between 25% and 50% in both cases. Our review of the evidence suggests several conclusions. First, although it is true that adjunctive lithium and thyroid hormone have established efficacy, we can only be confident that this is true for use in combination with tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), and the trials were done in less treatment-resistant patients than those who typically receive TCAs today. Of these two options, triiodothyronine augmentation seems to offer the best benefit/risk ratio for augmentation of modern antidepressants. After failure of a first-line selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), neither a switch within class nor a switch to a different class of antidepressant is unequivocally supported by the data, although switching from an SSRI to venlafaxine or mirtazapine may potentially offer greater benefits. Interestingly, switching from a newer antidepressant to a TCA after a poor response to the former is not supported by strong evidence. Of all strategies to augment response to new-generation antidepressants, quetiapine and aripiprazole are best supported by the evidence, although neither the cost effectiveness nor the longer-term benefit of these strategies has been established. The data to guide later steps in the treatment of resistant depression are sparse. Given the wide variety of options for the treatment of major depressive disorder, and the demonstrated importance of truly adequate treatment to the long-term outcomes of patients facing this illness, it is clear that further well conducted studies are needed.

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.

Augmentation strategies for treatment-resistant depression

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The majority of patients with depression fail to remit on one or more antidepressant trials. These patients have treatment-resistant depression (TRD) with high relapsing rates. Augmentation pharmacotherapy refers to the addition of drugs that are not standard antidepressants in order to enhance the effect of a classical antidepressant drug. This review highlights the current status and future research directions of augmentation treatments for TRD with a special focus on research data published within the past year.

RECENT FINDINGS

Atypical antipsychotics, stimulants, pindolol, lithium, lamotrigine and mecamylamine were tested for efficacy in clinical trials. Most of the trials were not controlled or had limited sample size. Recent data now support the use of some atypical antipsychotics to augment depression resistant to the newer, more selective, antidepressants.

SUMMARY

Lithium and triiodothyronin (T3) augmentation of tricyclic agents remains the best studied strategy. Data converge to demonstrate the efficacy of some atypical antipsychotics as augmenting agents to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Further adequately powered controlled trials on augmentation pharmacotherapy of TRD are necessary.

Efficacy and safety of triiodothyronine supplementation in patients with major depressive disorder treated with specific serotonin reuptake inhibitors

The thyroid hormone, triiodothyronine (T3), is used as a supplement to antidepressant treatment of major depression, to accelerate and enhance response and as an augmenter in patients who have not responded. While there is support from controlled trials and meta-analyses for the use of T3 in conjunction with tricyclic antidepressants, the evidence base for supplementation of specific serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) with T3 is more limited. We reviewed the available literature on T3 supplementation of SSRIs including open-label studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Five RCTs were identified. Three were enhancement studies in which T3 was administered concurrently with the antidepressant from the start of treatment and two were augmentation studies in which T3 was added to the antidepressant treatment of patients who had not responded. Three open augmentation studies were identified. The RCTs were too disparate in methodology to allow a meta-analysis to be performed. The enhancement studies are inconclusive in that one showed strongly positive effects of T3, one showed no effect and one showed a trend. The open augmentation studies supported an effect of T3 in SSRI non-responsive patients with some support from a large RCT; a smaller, underpowered RCT did not show efficacy. T3 was well tolerated in most of the studies and adverse effects do not seem to be an impediment to clinical use. Some of the studies identified clinical and thyroid function correlates of response that require further investigation. Further research is needed before it can be definitively established whether T3 is an effective supplement to SSRIs in patients with MDD. The appropriate timing of T3 supplementation needs to be explored and also the dose and length of treatment.

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.