A Meta-Analysis Comparing Open-Label versus Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trials for Aripiprazole Augmentation in the Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder: Lessons and Promises

PROTOCOL: Treatment for depressive disorder among adults: An evidence and gap map of systematic reviews

This is the protocol for a Campbell evidence and gap map. The objective of the map is to map available systematic reviews on the effectiveness of treatments for depressive disorders among adults. Specifically, this EGM includes studies on the effectiveness of treatments across a range of outcome domains.

Additional Reduction of Residual Symptoms with Aripiprazole Augmentation in the Patients with Partially Remitted Major Depressive Disorder

Objective

Many patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) suffer from residual symptoms without achieving remission. However, pharmacologic options for residual symptoms of MDD have been limited. This study aimed to investigate benefit of aripiprazole augmentation in the treatment of residual symptoms in the patients with partially remitted MDD.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the 8-week medical records of the patients. The enrolled patients did respond to treatment of antidepressant but were not remitted. The range of 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) total score of the subjects were 8 to 15 points. All patients were currently taking antidepressants when they started aripiprazole. The primary endpoint was the mean change of Clinically Useful Depression Outcome Scale (CUDOS). Secondary endpoint measures were HAMD, Clinical Global Impression-severity (CGI-S) scores, Patient Health Questionnaire-15 (PHQ-15), Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), Perceived Deficit Questionnaire-depression (PDQ-D), Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) and General Health Questionnaire/Quality of Life-12 (GHQ/QL-12).

Results

A total of 134 medical records were analyzed. The changes of CUDOS, HAMD, CGI-S, BAI, PHQ-15, PDQ-D, SDS and GHQ/QL-12 from baseline to the endpoint were −7.93, −3.29, −0.80, −4.02, −2.05, −4.35, −4.77 and −2.82, respectively (all p < 0.001). At the endpoint, the newly remitted subjects rate by HAMD score criteria were approximately 46%.

Conclusion

Our preliminary findings have presented the effectiveness of aripiprazole augmentation for residual symptoms of partially remitted MDD patients in routine practice. This study assures subsequent well-controlled studies of the possibility of generalizing the above promising outcome in the future.

Impacts on Quality of Life with Escitalopram Monotherapy and Aripiprazole Augmentation in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder: A CAN-BIND Report

INTRODUCTION

Many individuals with major depressive disorder (MDD) do not respond to initial antidepressant monotherapy. Adjunctive aripiprazole is recommended for treatment non-response; however, the impacts on quality of life (QoL) for individuals who receive this second-line treatment strategy have not been described.

METHODS

We evaluated secondary QoL outcomes in patients with MDD (n=179). After 8 weeks of escitalopram, non-responders (<50% decrease in clinician-rated depression) were treated with adjunctive aripiprazole for 8 weeks (n=97); responders continued escitalopram (n=82). A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated change in Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Short Form scores. QoL was described relative to normative benchmarks.

RESULTS

Escitalopram responders experienced the most QoL improvements in the first treatment phase. For non-responders, QoL improved with a large effect during adjunctive aripiprazole treatment. At the endpoint, 47% of patients achieving symptomatic remission still had impaired QoL.

DISCUSSION

Individuals who were treated with adjunctive aripiprazole after non-response to escitalopram experienced improved QoL, but a substantial degree of QoL impairment persisted. Since QoL deficits may predict MDD recurrence, attention to ways to support this outcome is required.

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

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

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

No study has directly compared the efficacy and tolerability of aripiprazole augmentation (AA) and antidepressant switching (SW) in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). This is the first 6-week, randomized, rater-blinded, direct comparison study between AA and SW in outpatients. An inadequate response to antidepressants was defined as a total score ≥ 14 on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-item 17 (HDRS-17) despite adequate antidepressant dosage for at least 6 weeks in the current depressive episode. The primary endpoint was change in the total score of the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) from baseline to the end of treatment. Secondary efficacy measures included the response and remission rates as priori defined at the end of treatment: changes in total scores of the HDRS-17, Iowa Fatigue Scale (IFS), and Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) from baseline to the end of treatment and the proportion of patients who scored 1 or 2 on the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement Score (CGI-I) at the end of treatment. Tolerability was assessed with the Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale (BARS) and Arizona Sexual dysfunction scale (ASEX), and the numbers of adverse events were compared between the two groups. A total of 101 patients were randomized to either AA (n = 52) or SW (n = 49). The mean change in the MADRS score from baseline was significantly higher in the AA, with a difference in magnitude of -8.7 (p < 0.0001). The intergroup difference was first evident in week 2. The numbers of responders (p = 0.0086) and remitters (p = 0.0005) were also significantly higher in the AA (60% and 54%, respectively) compared with the SW (32.6% and 19.6%, respectively). On most secondary endpoints, AA showed better clinical outcomes compared to SW. The tolerability profiles were comparable between the two groups. Overall, AA yielded potentially beneficial clinical outcomes compared to SW. Given the methodological shortcomings of the present study, adequately powered, more rigorously controlled clinical trials are strongly warranted to confirm the present findings.

Vortioxetine, a multimodal antidepressant for generalized anxiety disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Vortioxetine has a beneficial pharmacological profile for reducing anxiety and depression. Recently, a number of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of vortioxetine have been conducted in patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD); however, the results from GAD RCTs are inconsistent. With an extensive search of databases and clinical trial registries, four published short-term RCTs were identified and included in the present meta-analysis. The mean change in total scores on the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA) from baseline was the primary endpoint. The secondary endpoints included the response and remission rates, as defined by a ≥50% reduction in HAMA total scores and a ≤7 change in the HAMA total score at the end of treatment. In addition, the mean change in the HAMA total score from baseline in the subgroup with a HAMA total score ≥25 at baseline was included. Vortioxetine was significantly more effective than was placebo, with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of -0.118 (95% CIs, -0.203 to -0.033, P = 0.007). In particular, those with severe GAD (HAMA total score ≥25 at baseline) had a significantly greater benefit from vortioxetine than those without (SMD = -0.338, 95% CIs = -0.552 to -0.124, p = 0.002). The odds ratios (ORs) for vortioxetine for response and remission were 1.221 (95% CIs, 1.027 to 1.452, P = 0.024) and 1.052 (95% CIs, 0.853 to 1.296, P = 0.637), respectively. Discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs) (OR = 1.560, 1.006 to 2.419, p = 0.047) was marginally higher in vortioxetine than placebo treatment, whereas discontinuation due to any reason (OR = 0.971, 0.794 to 1.187, p = 0.771) and inefficacy (OR = 0.687, 0.380 to 1.243, p = 0.215) were not significantly different among treatment groups. Although our results suggest that vortioxetine may have a potential as an another treatment option for GAD (especially for severe GAD), they should be interpreted and translated into clinical practice with caution, as the meta-analysis was based on a limited number of RCTs.