An open-label, rater-blinded, augmentation study of aripiprazole in treatment-resistant depression

Background: About 30% to 46% of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) fail to fully respond to initial antidepressants. While treatment-resistant depression commonly refers to nonresponse or partial response to at least 2 adequate trials with antidepressants from different classes, due to variability in terminology, a staging system based on prior treatment response has been suggested. Aripiprazole is a novel atypical antipsychotic with partial agonism at dopamine D(2) and serotonin 5-HT(1A) receptors and antagonism at the 5-HT(2) receptors. The present study evaluated whether augmentation with aripiprazole would be beneficial and tolerable in patients with treatment-resistant MDD who had failed 1 or more trials of antidepressants. Method: In an open-label, rater-blinded study conducted from March 2003 through December 2003, 10 patients with DSM-IV MDD without psychotic features who had failed to respond to an adequate trial of at least 1 antidepressant were prescribed aripiprazole (10-30 mg/day) for 6 weeks. The dose of preexisting antidepressants remained unchanged. Treatment response was defined as a 50% or greater reduction in score on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) from baseline to end of treatment. Secondary efficacy measures included scores on the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) and -Severity (CGI-S) scales. Results: Eight of 10 patients had failed 2 or more antidepressant trials. The mean daily dose of aripiprazole was 13.21 mg. Intent-to-treat analysis showed that mean ± SD HAM-D scores reduced significantly from baseline (23.0 ± 8.1) to end of treatment (8.1 ± 6.0) (p < .001). There was a significant reduction in CGI-I (p < .05) and a trend toward decrease in CGI-S (p = .06) score. Seventy percent of the subjects were responders and 30% achieved remission. Common adverse effects were akathisia (20%), nausea (20%), and restlessness (20%). Conclusions: The study indicates the potential utility of aripiprazole as an augmenting agent in treatment-resistant depression, particularly in those who had failed 2 or more antidepressant trials. Adequately powered, randomized controlled trials are necessary to evaluate the role of aripiprazole in treatment-resistant depression.     

Augmentation of antidepressants with atypical antipsychotics: a review of the current literature

Studies have found that a large percentage of depressed patients may have limited response and remission rates when treated with traditional antidepressants. Options for augmenting antidepressant treatment include buspirone, lithium, and triiodothyronine. There are also increasing data concerning the use of atypical antipsychotics as augmenting agents in the treatment of unipolar, nonpsychotic, treatment-resistant depression. Aripiprazole has recently received an indication from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for adjunctive treatment in unipolar, nonpsychotic depression, the first indication of its kind, after two double-blind trials; doses were slightly lower than those recommended for monotherapy in schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. Olanzapine and risperidone have several controlled clinical trials indicating the efficacy of both of these agents, generally at low doses. One trial of quetiapine suggested that it may not be effective in the treatment of unipolar, nonpsychotic depression. One open-label trial of ziprasidone indicated some efficacy. According to these results, aripiprazole, olanzapine, and risperidone are reasonable choices as augmentation agents, with only aripiprazole currently having an FDA indication for this use. Given the preliminary results, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials with quetiapine and ziprasidone are needed, as well as studies comparing atypical antipsychotic agents with traditional augmentation agents in the treatment of depression.     

Mirtazapine monotherapy versus combination therapy with mirtazapine and aripiprazole in depressed patients without psychotic features: a 4-week open-label parallel-group study.

BACKGROUND: There is preliminary evidence that the atypical antipsychotic aripiprazole, which is a partial agonist at D(2) and 5-HT(1A) receptors and a potent antagonist at 5-HT(2A) receptors, may be useful as an augmentation strategy in treatment-resistant depression. METHOD: In this 4-week open-label non-randomized parallel-group study, the safety and efficacy of aripiprazole as add-on treatment strategy in patients suffering from non-delusional depression was investigated. Forty drug-free depressed inpatients without psychotic symptoms (13 men, 27 women), suffering from a major depressive episode or bipolar disorder, depressive state (DSM-IV criteria), were included in the study. The patients were treated either with mirtazapine monotherapy (45 mg/day) or combination therapy (mirtazapine 45 mg/day plus aripiprazole 15 mg/day) for 4 weeks. Safety and efficacy were assessed weekly using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, the Simpson-Angus Scale and the Barnes Akathisia Scale. RESULTS: Mirtazapine monotherapy and combined treatment with mirtazapine and aripiprazole showed comparable antidepressant effects as assessed at the endpoint of the study period. However, additional administration of aripiprazole accelerated the onset of antidepressant action in patients suffering from treatment-resistant depression. Additive use of aripiprazole reduced the mirtazapine-induced increase in the body mass index. Moreover, mirtazapine had favourable effects on aripiprazole-induced akathisia. No other extrapyramidal side effects were seen in the combination therapy group. CONCLUSION: Combined therapy with mirtazapine and aripiprazole is a safe and well-tolerated treatment option which may be useful especially in treatment-resistant depression. Double-blind controlled studies are needed to further explore the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole in depressed patients.     

The effectiveness of olanzapine, risperidone, quetiapine, and ziprasidone as augmentation agents in treatment-resistant major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND: Many questions remain regarding the use of atypical neuroleptics as antidepressant augmentation agents. To date, there have been no reports in the literature regarding the effectiveness of these drugs when trials of one or more of them have failed previously as antidepressant augmentation. METHOD: This retrospective chart review was conducted to determine the effectiveness of olanzapine, risperidone, quetiapine, and ziprasidone when given in a fee-for-service setting as anti-depressant augmentation agents to patients with treatment-resistant, nonpsychotic major depressive disorder (DSM-IV). Prospective (Global Assessment of Functioning [GAF]) along with retrospective (Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement [CGI-I] and -Severity of Illness scales) ratings were completed for each patient. Analyses were conducted in an attempt to identify factors that appeared to correlate with response, including order of administration and Thase-Rush staging of treatment resistance. RESULTS: In this study of 76 medication trials in 49 patients, the overall response rate based on the CGI-I ratings was 65% (32/49). Individual rates of response were 57% (21/37) for olanzapine, 50% (7/14) for risperidone, 33% (6/18) for quetiapine, and 10% (1/10) for ziprasidone. None of the differences between neuroleptics in rates of response were significant. The difference between baseline and final GAF scores was statistically significant only in the olanzapine (p <.001) and risperidone (p =.047) groups. Rates of discontinuation did not vary significantly between agents, though trends were present. Crossover trials from one atypical neuroleptic to another in the event of nonresponse appeared to be effective. CONCLUSIONS: Although limited by its design, this study suggests atypical neuroleptic augmentation of antidepressants may be a viable option in treatment-resistant major depressive disorder.     

Switching versus augmentation: a prospective, naturalistic comparison in depressed, treatment-resistant patients

OBJECTIVE: (1) To directly compare the effectiveness of switching antidepressants with augmenting them in depressed patients who do not respond to an initial adequate trial and (2) to determine whether there is a decreased likelihood of response to a second switch or augmentation trial in those patients who did not respond to the first intervention for treatment-resistant depression. METHOD: In a naturalistic, open-label design, all depressed outpatients (DSM-IV criteria) who were treatment resistant were prospectively assessed. Short- and long-term outcomes of switching versus augmentation were compared using the Clinical Global Impressions scale. RESULTS: In the acute phase, 37 (50.0%) of 74 subjects responded to 1 of the 2 interventions for treatment-resistant depression. Forty-five percent (N = 17) and 56% (N = 20) of the patients who had their antidepressant switched or augmented, respectively, responded to that intervention. Nearly three fourths (71.4%) of the acute responders maintained their response through 6 months of follow-up. In 18 patients who did not respond to the first switch or augmentation, 9 (50.0%) responded to a second trial. CONCLUSION: Switching antidepressants was somewhat less effective than augmentation, although this difference was not statistically significant. For patients who do not respond to an augmentation or switch, our results suggest that a second trial for treatment-resistant depression may be as effective as the first.     

Using adjunctive treatments when first-line antidepressants fail

Treatment-resistant depression is a common challenge for clinicians, as the majority of patients with depression do not achieve remission after an initial antidepressant trial. Major strategies for managing treatment-resistant depression include switching to another antidepressant or augmenting the initial antidepressant with another medication. Switching may be appropriate for patients experiencing little or no symptom relief or intolerable side effects with the initial antidepressant. For patients who experience partial response from the first-line antidepressant, adjunctive therapies avoid the loss of this response and the wash-out and cross-titration that are required when switching antidepressants. Several effective antidepressant augmentation agents are available, including lithium, thyroid hormone, anti-anxiety medications, and atypical antipsychotics. The evidence for the efficacy and risks of these strategies is discussed.     

A double-blind,randomized, placebo-controlled trial of augmentation with lamotrigine or placebo in patients concomitantly treated with fluoxetine for resistant major depressive episodes

BACKGROUND: Evidence of the antidepressant efficacy of lamotrigine is increasing, although there are no placebo-controlled trials of lamotrigine augmentation in depression. The aim of this study was to assess if augmentation with lamotrigine was superior to placebo in patients who were receiving fluoxetine for resistant major depressive episodes. METHOD: Twenty-three patients who had experienced at least 1 major depressive episode that was resistant to at least 1 prior trial of antidepressant therapy were selected. These patients were treated with fluoxetine, 20 mg/day, and concomitantly randomly assigned to receive either lamotrigine (N = 13) or placebo (N = 10) for 6 weeks. The dose of lamotrigine was titrated upward from 25 mg/day to 100 mg/day. Patients suffering from bipolar II disorder (N = 8) or from major depressive disorder (N = 15) (DSM-IV criteria) were enrolled, resulting in heterogeneity of the sample. The primary outcome measure was Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score. Data were collected from 2000-2001. RESULTS: Lamotrigine was statistically superior to placebo on the Clinical Global Impressions scale at endpoint, both in absolute terms (mean +/- SD Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scores: lamotrigine, 2.15 +/- 1.28; placebo, 3.40 +/- 1.17; p =.0308) and using a responder analysis, with response defined as a Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement score of 2 or less (lamotrigine, 84.62% [N = 11]; placebo, 30.00% [N = 3]; p =.013). The effect of lamotrigine on Clinical Global Impressions scale scores was seen in both major depressive disorder and bipolar II disorder. Lamotrigine, however, failed to separate statistically from placebo on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale. This failure to differentiate on a primary outcome measure is essentially a negative study result. This result is most likely an artifact of the small sample size used and the resultant limited power of the study. CONCLUSION: The results of this trial add to the literature suggesting potential efficacy of the antidepressant profile of lamotrigine. In addition, this study points to a possible role of lamotrigine as an augmentation agent in depression.     

Are atypical antipsychotic drugs also atypical antidepressants?

OBJECTIVE: To report a case series and review the psychopharmacology of the neuroleptic drugs to suggest that the atypical antipsychotic drugs may have an antidepressant action, at least for those patients with the melancholic subtype. METHOD: We note the literature suggesting that the older (or typical) antipsychotic drugs were established as having antidepressant activity, describe an open study of some two dozen patients with a treatment-resistant melancholic depression, describe rapid resolution of depression and augmentation benefits associated with commencing an atypical antipsychotic drug in a percentage of subjects, and then review relevant psychopharmacological studies to consider whether there is a rationale for use of antipsychotic drugs to treat depression. RESULTS: Of some two dozen patients treated with an atypical antipsychotic drug, almost immediate improvement was noted in four patients, and evidence of augmentation benefit obtained in another three patients. CONCLUSIONS: Impressions from this case series are encouraging. However, as open clinical observational studies are problematic, controlled studies are required to establish whether the atypical antipsychotic drugs have a role in the management of certain expressions of depression, and, in particular, treatment-resistant melancholic depression.     

Bright light augmentation in antidepressant nonresponders

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to examine the potential benefit of the addition of bright lights to antidepressant treatment in depressed subjects. METHOD: Ten patients who presented during the winter months with major depression and who had failed an adequate trial of antidepressants or who had relapsed following a successful course of antidepressants underwent a 2-week course of bright light therapy. RESULTS: Augmentation with bright lights resulted in substantial improvement in 7 of the 10 patients. CONCLUSION: Bright light augmentation may provide a useful treatment alternative for patients with treatment-resistant depression.     

Aripiprazole augmentation of antidepressants for the treatment of partially responding and nonresponding patients with major depressive disorder

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and tolerability of aripiprazole, a dopamine D2 and 5-HT1A receptor partial agonist, as augmentation of antidepressant treatment of partially responding and nonresponding patients with major depressive disorder. METHOD: Fifteen patients with major depressive disorder (diagnosed with a site-generated form described in the text) and an incomplete response or no response to > or = 8 weeks of antidepressant (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, venlafaxine, or bupropion) monotherapy were treated with aripiprazole augmentation in an 8-week, open-label study. Data were gathered from July 2003 to March 2004. RESULTS: The mean duration of antidepressant monotherapy at baseline was 43.1 weeks. At baseline, mean Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale and Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) scores were 4.3 and 18.9, respectively. After initiation of aripiprazole augmentation, 6 of 15 patients achieved remission (HAM-D score < or = 7) at week 1, and 9 of 15 patients remitted by week 2. All 8 completers achieved remission by study endpoint. Akathisia in 2 patients who withdrew prematurely prompted a reduction in the starting dose of aripiprazole from 10 mg/day to 2.5 mg/day, resulting in a 50% reduction in attrition due to akathisia (2/7 withdrew due to akathisia with the 10-mg starting dose, 1/8 withdrew due to akathisia with the 2.5-mg starting dose). Discontinuation rates after 4 weeks of treatment were lower for the 2.5-mg starting dose (1/8 patients) than for the 10-mg starting dose (3/7 patients). Overall discontinuation rates at endpoint were lower for the 2.5-mg dose (3/8 patients) than the 10-mg dose (4/7 patients). Response to aripiprazole augmentation did not appear to be related to the antidepressant used at study initiation. CONCLUSION: Aripiprazole is an effective augmentation strategy for improving therapeutic response in patients with treatment-resistant major depressive disorder when administered in combination with standard antidepressant therapy. Based on this clinical signal, a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial is warranted.     

Mirtazapine for treatment-resistant depression: a preliminary report

OBJECTIVE: To describe the effectiveness and tolerability of mirtazapine, a noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressant, in the open-label treatment of patients with depression who were resistant to other antidepressant agents. METHODS: The charts of 24 patients who met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, (DSM-IV) criteria for major depressive disorder and were treated with mirtazapine after partial or nonresponse to standard antidepressants were reviewed for clinical response. Outcome was determined by using the Clinical Global Impressions of Improvement (CGI-I) Scale. RESULTS: Symptomatic improvement was observed in 9 (38%) of 24 patients during an average of 14.1 months of mirtazapine treatment at a mean dose of 36.7 mg/day. Five (21%) patients discontinued mirtazapine because of side effects such as fatigue, weight gain and nausea. Five (21%) patients were receiving combination therapy with another antidepressant when mirtazapine treatment was initiated. CONCLUSIONS: This open-label study suggests that a subgroup of patients with treatment-resistant depression may benefit from mirtazapine treatment. Further controlled studies are required to demonstrate the efficacy of mirtazapine in treatment-resistant depression.     

A description of next-step switching versus augmentation practices for outpatients with treatment-resistant major depressive disorder enrolled in an academic specialty clinic.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of naturalistic studies from depression specialty clinics describing the next-step (augmentation versus switching) practices of clinicians for outpatients with major depressive disorder (MDD) resistant to an antidepressant trial of adequate dose and duration. METHODS: Eighty-five MDD outpatients enrolled in one of two specialty clinics, who had not achieved remission after a first adequate prospective antidepressant trial conducted at the clinic underwent either augmentation (n = 36) or switching (n=49) of their antidepressant regimen. Outcome was defined with the use of the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) Scale. RESULTS: Nonresponders (CGI-I>3) following the first antidepressant trial were more likely to have their treatment switched than patients who experienced incomplete response (CGI-I<4, CGI-S>1) (67.2% versus 28.5%, p = 0.001). Incomplete responders during the first trial who went on to receive augmentation had higher remission rates (60.0% versus 0%, p=0.01), lower endpoint depression severity scores (1.8 +/- 1.1 versus 3.3 +/- 0.8, p = 0.01) and greater clinical improvement scores (1.6 +/- 1.1 versus 3.0 +/- 0.0, p=0.03) than incomplete responders who had their antidepressant regimen switched. Although nonresponders to the first treatment who were switched experienced greater symptom improvement than nonresponders who were augmented (2.7 +/- 1.1 versus 3.4 +/- 1.2, p=0.03), there was no significant difference (p>0.05) between these two groups with respect to remission rates (18.6% versus 14.2%, respectively) and endpoint depressive severity (3.0 +/- 1.4 versus 3.4 +/- 1.4, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In this nonrandomized, naturalistic treatment setting, nonresponders to an adequate, prospective antidepressant trial were more likely to have their antidepressant regimen switched, while patients with incomplete response during the first trial were more likely to have their regimen augmented. In addition, patients with incomplete response who had their treatment augmented had better outcome than patients with incomplete response who had their treatment switched.     

Treatment-resistant bipolar depression: a STEP-BD equipoise randomized effectiveness trial of antidepressant augmentation with lamotrigine, inositol, or risperidone

OBJECTIVE: Clinicians have few evidence-based options for the management of treatment-resistant bipolar depression. This study represents the first randomized trial of competing options for treatment-resistant bipolar depression and assesses the effectiveness and safety of antidepressant augmentation with lamotrigine, inositol, and risperidone. METHOD: Participants (N=66) were patients with bipolar I or bipolar II disorder enrolled in the NIMH Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for Bipolar Disorder (STEP-BD). All patients were in a current major depressive episode that was nonresponsive to a combination of adequate doses of established mood stabilizers plus at least one antidepressant. Patients were randomly assigned to open-label adjunctive treatment with lamotrigine, inositol, or risperidone for up to 16 weeks. The primary outcome measure was the rate of recovery, defined as no more than two symptoms meeting DSM-IV threshold criteria for a mood episode and no significant symptoms present for 8 weeks. RESULTS: No significant between-group differences were seen when any pair of treatments were compared on the primary outcome measure. However, the recovery rate with lamotrigine was 23.8%, whereas the recovery rates with inositol and risperidone were 17.4% and 4.6%, respectively. Patients receiving lamotrigine had lower depression ratings and Clinical Global Impression severity scores as well as greater Global Assessment of Functioning scores compared with those receiving inositol and risperidone. CONCLUSIONS: No differences were found in primary pairwise comparison analyses of open-label augmentation with lamotrigine, inositol, or risperidone. Post hoc secondary analyses suggest that lamotrigine may be superior to inositol and risperidone in improving treatment-resistant bipolar depression.     

Antidepressant response to aripiprazole augmentation associated with enhanced FDOPA utilization in striatum: A preliminary PET study

Several double blind, prospective trials have demonstrated an antidepressant augmentation efficacy of aripiprazole in depressed patients unresponsive to standard antidepressant therapy. Although aripiprazole is now widely used for this indication, and much is known about its receptor-binding properties, the mechanism of its antidepressant augmentation remains ill-defined. In vivo animal studies and in vitro human studies using cloned dopamine dopamine D2 receptors suggest aripiprazole is a partial dopamine agonist; in this preliminary neuroimaging trial, we hypothesized that aripiprazole's antidepressant augmentation efficacy arises from dopamine partial agonist activity. To test this, we assessed the effects of aripiprazole augmentation on the cerebral utilization of 6-[¹⁸F]-fluoro-3,4-dihydroxy-l-phenylalanine (FDOPA) using positron emission tomography (PET). Fourteen depressed patients, who had failed 8 weeks of antidepressant therapy with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, underwent FDOPA PET scans before and after aripiprazole augmentation; 11 responded to augmentation. Whole brain, voxel-wise comparisons of pre- and post-aripiprazole scans revealed increased FDOPA trapping in the right medial caudate of augmentation responders. An exploratory analysis of depressive symptoms revealed that responders experienced large improvements only in putatively dopaminergic symptoms of lassitude and inability to feel. These preliminary findings suggest that augmentation of antidepressant response by aripiprazole may be associated with potentiation of dopaminergic activity.     

Lamotrigine adjunctive treatment in resistant unipolar depression: an open, descriptive study

Adjunctive treatment of lamotrigine compared to other antidepressants in the treatment of partially responsive, poorly functioning patients with unipolar depression was assessed. Fourteen consenting patients with confirmed DSM-IV-R diagnosis of unipolar depression were identified as treatment resistant. All patients failed at least two 8-week treatment trials with antidepressants. All were treated with lamotrigine as an adjunct to other antidepressants for at least 6 months. The primary effectiveness measure was the Clinical Global Impression Severity subscale (CGI-S). Other scales included the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Scale (MADRS) and the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (GAF). Monitoring for skin rashes, headache, dizziness, somnolence, and gastrointestinal disturbances was carried out to assess for adverse events. Baseline measures prior to adding lamotrigine were compared to those at 8 weeks and 6 months with adjunctive treatment. Twelve patients of the total (n=14) completed the trial, and two discontinued treatment. There was significant, rapid, and robust resolution in symptoms in all effectiveness measures, including the core symptoms of depression, as shown by the changes from baseline in CGI-S, and MADRS at 8 weeks. Social and occupational functioning was significantly improved at 6 months. Eight patients returned to gainful employment or started schooling. Patients tolerated the adjunctive lamotrigine treatment well. Lamotrigine may have antidepressant properties in patients with unipolar depression and may have an earlier onset of action when given in combination with antidepressants.     

Managing treatment-resistant major depression

A sizable proportion of patients suffering from nonpsychotic unipolar depression experience only partial or no clinical response to antidepressant treatment. Switching, augmenting, and combining various pharmaceutical agents can be effective strategies for patients with treatment-resistant depression. The empirical evidence supporting these approaches is inconsistent, however, and there is a paucity of controlled studies to support their efficacy. Additionally, it has been difficult to demonstrate the advantages of these strategies over increasing the dose or duration of the initial drug treatment. This article will review available evidence and clinical considerations regarding switching, augmenting, and combining various agents in the treatment of patients suffering from nonpsychotic unipolar depression who have failed adequate courses of antidepressant treatment. More research is needed that controls for continued time on the initial agent, that compares different strategies, and that determines which patients are the best candidates for which treatment.     

Creatine monohydrate in resistant depression: a preliminary study

OBJECTIVES: Creatine plays a pivotal role in brain energy homeostasis, and altered cerebral energy metabolism may be involved in the pathophysiology of depression. Oral creatine supplementation may modify brain high-energy phosphate metabolism in depressed subjects. METHODS: Eight unipolar and two bipolar patients with treatment-resistant depression were treated for four weeks with 3-5 g/day of creatine monohydrate in an open add-on design. Outcome measures were the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Hamilton Anxiety Scale, and Clinical Global Impression scores, recorded at baseline and at weeks 1, 2, 3 and 4. RESULTS: One patient improved considerably after one week and withdrew. Both bipolar patients developed hypomania/mania. For the remaining seven patients, all scale scores significantly improved. Adverse reactions were mild and transitory. CONCLUSIONS: This small, preliminary, open study of creatine monohydrate suggests a beneficial effect of creatine augmentation in unipolar depression, but possible precipitation of a manic switch in bipolar depression.     

The effectiveness of atypical antipsychotic medications in depressive disorders

Clinical evidence supporting the use of atypical antipsychotic medication (broad-spectrum psychotropic agents) in the treatment of depressive disorders is increasing rapidly. Animal models suggest that when atypical antipsychotic medications are used in combination with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor there is additional activation of frontal dopaminergic and noradrenergic neurotransmitter systems. This stimulated the initiation of several clinical trials that showed the efficacy of atypical antipsychotic medication augmentation of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for patients with treatment-resistant depression. There also are few case reports of successful treatment of depression with atypical antipsychotic medication alone. When a clinician is treating a depressed patient who did not achieve relief after trials with two different antidepressant regimens, one option to consider is augmentation with an atypical antipsychotic medication to ameliorate depressive symptoms.     

What alternatives to first-line therapy for depression are effective?

Depression is often a chronic illness that requires a methodical, long-term approach to manage it optimally. A single antidepressant trial is often insufficient for patients to achieve remission. Remission rates for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are about 30% to 35%. Using successive treatment steps with optimal medication dosing and making measurement-based treatment decisions can help patients achieve remission, but, at each step, remission is less likely than at the first step. Depression is considered treatment-resistant if 2 adequate trials of medication fail. Clinicians can use validated symptom checklists such as the 16-Item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, 9-Item Patient Health Questionnaire, Global Assessment of Functioning, and Sheehan Disability Scale to identify patients with treatment-resistant depression. Treatment resistance is likely in patients with a history of depressive chronicity and concurrent psychiatric and medical disorders and may be mistakenly suspected in patients who have had an inadequate trial of medication or who have been misdiagnosed. Strategies that can be effective to combat treatment resistance include optimizing treatment, switching to another antidepressant, combining antidepressants, and augmenting antidepressants with nonantidepressant treatments such as buspirone, lithium, liothyronine, atypical antipsychotics, or other agents. In addition, clinicians need to cultivate strong therapeutic alliances with patients, use objective measurements, practice evidence-based medicine, and educate patients about the disease and its treatments.