Cargando…
Can Atypical Antipsychotic Augmentation Reduce Subsequent Treatment Failure More Effectively Among Depressed Patients with a Higher Degree of Treatment Resistance? A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
BACKGROUND: Atypical antipsychotic augmentation was demonstrated to be efficacious in treatment-resistant depression (TRD) in previous meta-analyses. We investigate whether there are differences in the effect size of atypical antipsychotic augmentation in major depressive disorder according to the d...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4571632/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25770098 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ijnp/pyv023 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: Atypical antipsychotic augmentation was demonstrated to be efficacious in treatment-resistant depression (TRD) in previous meta-analyses. We investigate whether there are differences in the effect size of atypical antipsychotic augmentation in major depressive disorder according to the degree of treatment resistance. METHODS: A comprehensive search of four databases identified 11 randomized controlled trials. The 11 trials, which included 3 341 participants, were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Atypical antipsychotic augmentation of antidepressant therapy showed superior efficacy compared to antidepressant monotherapy in TRD in terms of both response and remission rates (response, risk ratio [RR] = 1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.25 to 1.53; remission, RR = 1.62, 95% CI = 1.42 to 1.85). In addition, regarding response rates in the TRD trials, atypical antipsychotic augmentation exhibited significantly different effect sizes according to the degree of treatment resistance (TRD 1: RR = 1.24; TRD 2: RR = 1.37; TRD 2–4: RR = 1.58). In non-TRD trials, atypical antipsychotic augmentation failed to show superior efficacy over antidepressant monotherapy in terms of remission rates (RR = 0.89; 95% CI = 0.69 to 1.14). Atypical antipsychotic augmentation of antidepressant therapy exhibits greater effect size in patients with a higher degree of treatment resistance. CONCLUSIONS: This finding strengthens the rationale for considering atypical antipsychotic augmentation among depressed patients with multiple previous treatment failures in clinical practice. The efficacy of atypical antipsychotic augmentation for non-TRD seems to be different from that for TRD and, thus, further studies of non-TRD populations are needed. |
---|