Search

The clinical phenotype of the so-called late-onset depression (LOD) affecting up to 30% of older adults and yielding heterogeneous manifestations concerning symptoms, severity and course has not been fully elucidated yet. This European, cross-sectional, non-interventional, naturalistic multicenter study systematically investigated socio-demographic and clinical correlates of early-onset depression (EOD) and LOD (age of onset ≥ 50 years) in 1410 adult in- and outpatients of both sexes receiving adequate psychopharmacotherapy. In a total of 1329 patients (94.3%) with known age of disease onset, LOD was identified in 23.2% and was associated with unemployment, an ongoing relationship, single major depressive episodes, lower current suicidal risk and higher occurrence of comorbid hypertension. In contrast, EOD was related to higher rates of comorbid migraine and additional psychotherapy. Although the applied study design does not allow to draw any causal conclusions, the present results reflect broad clinical settings and emphasize easily obtainable features which might be characteristic for EOD and LOD. A thoughtful consideration of age of onset might, hence, contribute to optimized diagnostic and therapeutic processes in terms of the globally intended precision medicine, ideally enabling early and adequate treatment allocations and implementation of respective prevention programs., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Within the last three years, Dr. Bartova has received travel grants and consultant/speaker honoraria from Alpine Market Research, Angelini, Biogen, Diagnosia, Dialectica, EQT, Janssen, Lundbeck, Market Access Transformation, Medizin Medien Austria, Novartis, Schwabe and Universimed. Dr. Fugger has received consultant/speaker honoraria from Janssen. Dr. Dold has received travel grants and consultant/speaker honoraria from Medizin Medien Austria, Janssen and Universimed. Dr. Kloimstein has received consultant/speaker honoraria from AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals, Camurus, Diagnosia, Gerot-Lannach, Lundbeck, Schwabe and Servier. Dr. Rujescu has received grant/research support from Janssen and Lundbeck; he has served as a consultant or on advisory boards for Janssen and Rovi and he has served on speakers bureaus of Janssen and Pharmagenetix. Dr. Souery has received grant/research support from GlaxoSmithKline and Lundbeck; and he has served as a consultant or on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and Lundbeck. Dr. Mendlewicz is a member of the board of the Lundbeck International Neuroscience Foundation and of the advisory board of Servier. Dr. Zohar has received grant/research support from Lundbeck, Servier, and Pfizer; he has served as a consultant or on the advisory boards for Servier, Pfizer, Solvay, and Actelion; and he has served on speakers’ bureaus for Lundbeck, GlaxoSmithKline, Jazz, and Solvay. Dr. Montgomery has served as a consultant or on advisory boards for Lundbeck. Dr. Fabbri has served as speaker for Janssen. Dr. Serretti has served as a consultant or speaker for Abbott, Abbvie, Angelini, AstraZeneca, Clinical Data, Boehringer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Innovapharma, Italfarmaco, Janssen, Lundbeck, Naurex, Pfizer, Polifarma, Sanofi, Servier and Taliaz. Within the last three years, Dr. Kasper has received grant/research support from Lundbeck; he has served as a consultant or on advisory boards for Angelini, Biogen, Esai, Janssen, IQVIA, Lundbeck, Mylan, Recordati, Sage and Schwabe; and he has served on speakers bureaus for Abbott, Angelini, Aspen Farmaceutica S.A., Biogen, Janssen, Lundbeck, Recordati, Sage, Sanofi, Schwabe, Servier, Sun Pharma and Vifor., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The influence of baseline severity on the efficacy of Silexan, a proprietary essential oil from Lavandula angustifolia , in anxiety disorders has not been investigated in a pooled dataset. We report on an individual patient data analysis of all five double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials with Silexan in anxiety disorders. Eligible participants received Silexan 80 mg/d or placebo for 10 weeks. Analyses were based on the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA), its psychic and somatic anxiety subscores, and the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scale. To correlate baseline severity with outcome, patients were segregated into mild, moderate, and severe cases. Altogether 1,172 patients (Silexan, n = 587; placebo, n = 585) were analyzed. For the HAMA total score, we found a significant association between the score at baseline and the treatment effect of Silexan versus placebo at week 10 ( p  < 0.001). HAMA items from the somatic domain scored lower at baseline and showed less improvement than items from the psychic domain, particularly in patients with mild or moderate baseline symptoms. For CGI item 2 (global improvement), significant efficacy favoring Silexan were observed in mild, moderate, and severe baseline symptom severity. Although significant improvements were found for all subsets, the more severe the initial symptoms, the greater the treatment effects documented by the HAMA. Overall this analysis confirms that Silexan is an effective treatment option in early or mild stages of anxiety disorder. Given its favorable safety profile, Silexan can thus fill a therapeutic gap in the treatment of (subsyndromal) anxiety disorders.

Introduction: We report on a meta-analysis of Silexan, a proprietary active substance produced from Lavandula angustifolia, in subthreshold anxiety, mixed anxiety and depressive disorder (MADD), and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD)., Methods: The present analyses are based on all currently completed 5 double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials investigating Silexan in adult out-patients who received Silexan 1 × 80 mg/day or placebo for ten weeks according to random assignment (n = 1213). Efficacy was assessed based on the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA), several anxiety self-rating scales, the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale, and the Short Form-36 (SF-36) health status questionnaire., Results: After ten weeks' treatment, Silexan was significantly superior to placebo in reducing the HAMA total score (including the psychic and somatic anxiety sub-scores) and self-rated anxiety. Based on a ≥ 50% HAMA total score reduction, the responder rate ratio was 1.34 favoring Silexan, and the rate ratio of subjects much or very much improved according to the CGI was 1.51. Silexan was also significantly superior in improving the physical and mental health summary scores of the SF-36. There were no significant between-group differences concerning the occurrence of adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, and premature withdrawal due to AEs., Conclusions: This meta-analysis demonstrates that Silexan exerts significant anxiolytic effects in subthreshold anxiety, GAD and MADD that were consistently reflected in investigator ratings and patient-reported outcomes, including improvement of health-related life-quality, while showing favorable tolerability and safety., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) are among the most frequently prescribed antidepressants (ADs) for major depressive disorder (MDD), with an increasing trend in the last decade. Given the relative dearth of information regarding rationales for their preferred use as first-line ADs in the broad clinical routine, the present study systematically investigated real-world characteristics of MDD patients prescribed either SNRIs or other AD substances across different countries and treatment settings., Methods: In the present secondary analyses based on a large European, multi-site, naturalistic and cross-sectional investigation with a retrospective assessment of treatment outcome, we firstly defined the proportion of MDD patients receiving SNRIs as first-line AD psychopharmacotherapy and secondly compared their sociodemographic and clinical characteristics to those patients prescribed alternative first-line ADs during their current major depressive episode (MDE)., Results: Within the total sample of 1410 MDD patients, 336 (23.8 %) received first-line SNRIs. Compared to other ADs, SNRIs were significantly associated with inpatient care, suicidality and treatment resistance during the current MDE, and a longer lifetime duration of psychiatric hospitalizations. Moreover, greater severity of depressive symptoms at study entry, higher daily doses of the administered ADs, as well as more frequent prescriptions of psychopharmacotherapeutic add-on strategies in general and antipsychotic augmentation in particular, were significantly related to first-line SNRIs., Conclusions: Considering the limitations of a cross-sectional and retrospective study design, our data point towards a preferred use of first-line SNRIs in a generally more severely ill MDD patients, although they did not lead to superior treatment outcomes compared to alternative ADs., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest Within the last three years, Dr. Bartova has received travel grants and consultant/speaker honoraria from Alpine Market Research, Angelini, Biogen, Diagnosia, Dialectica, Janssen, Lundbeck, Market Access Transformation, Medizin Medien Austria, Novartis, Schwabe and Universimed. Dr. Fugger has received consultant/speaker honoraria from Janssen and Angelini. Dr. Dold has received travel grants and consultant/speaker honoraria from Medizin Medien Austria, Janssen and Universimed. Dr. Rujescu has received grant/research support from Janssen and Lundbeck; he has served as a consultant or on advisory boards for Janssen and Rovi and he has served on speakers bureaus of Janssen and Pharmagenetix. Dr. Souery has received grant/research support from GlaxoSmithKline and Lundbeck; and he has served as a consultant or on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and Lundbeck. Dr. Mendlewicz is a member of the board of the Lundbeck International Neuroscience Foundation and of the advisory board of Servier. Dr. Zohar has received grant/research support from Lundbeck, Servier, and Pfizer; he has served as a consultant or on the advisory boards for Servier, Pfizer, Solvay, and Actelion; and he has served on speakers' bureaus for Lundbeck, GlaxoSmithKline, Jazz, and Solvay. Dr. Montgomery has served as a consultant or on advisory boards for Lundbeck. Dr. Fabbri has served as speaker for Janssen. Dr. Serretti has served as a consultant or speaker for Abbott, Abbvie, Angelini, AstraZeneca, Clinical Data, Boehringer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Innovapharma, Italfarmaco, Janssen, Lundbeck, Naurex, Pfizer, Polifarma, Sanofi, Servier and Taliaz. Dr. Kasper has received grant/research support from Lundbeck; he has served as a consultant or on advisory boards for Angelini, Biogen, Esai, Janssen, IQVIA, Lundbeck, Mylan, Recordati, Sage and Schwabe; and he has served on speakers bureaus for Abbott, Angelini, Aspen Farmaceutica S.A., Biogen, Janssen, Lundbeck, Recordati, Sage, Sanofi, Schwabe, Servier, Sun Pharma and Vifor., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is an important clinical challenge and may present differently between age groups., Methods: A total of 893 depressed patients recruited within the framework of the European research consortium "Group for the Studies of Resistant Depression" were assessed by generalized linear models regarding age effects (both as numerical and factorial predictors) on treatment outcome, number of lifetime depressive episodes, hospitalization time, and duration of the current episode. Effects of age as numerical predictor on the severity of common depressive symptoms, measured with Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) for two-time points, were assessed by linear mixed models, respectively, for patients showing TRD and treatment response. A corrected p threshold of 0.001 was applied., Results: Overall symptom load reflected by MADRS ( p  < 0.0001) and lifetime hospitalization time ( p  < 0.0001) increased with age in TRD patients but not treatment responders. In TRD, higher age was predicting symptom severity of inner tension, reduced appetite, concentrations difficulties, and lassitude (all p  ≤ 0.001). Regarding clinical significance, older TRD patients were more likely to report severe symptoms (item score > 4) for these items both before and after treatment (all p  ≤ 0.001)., Conclusions: In this naturalistic sample of severely ill depressed patients, antidepressant treatment protocols were equally effective in addressing TRD in old age. However, specific symptoms such as sadness, appetite, and concentration showed an age-dependent presentation, impacting residual symptoms in severely affected TRD patients and calling for a precision approach by a better integration of age profiles in treatment recommendations.

Silexan is a proprietary active substance produced from Lavandula angustifolia, with proven anxiolytic efficacy in subthreshold and generalized anxiety disorder as well as in mixed anxiety and depressive disorder with beneficial impact on anxiety-related sleep disturbances. The pharmacological profile and clinical observations suggest that Silexan may also have an antidepressant effect. To investigate the effect of Silexan on co-occurring depressive symptoms, we present a meta-analysis of the five placebo-controlled clinical trials hitherto performed with Silexan in subthreshold anxiety (n = 3) and anxiety disorders (n = 2). Patients of all trials received Silexan 1 × 80 mg/day or placebo for 10 weeks according to random assignment. Assessment of the antidepressant effect was based on item 'depressed mood' from the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA) administered in all trials and on the total scores of the Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) or the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) used in three trials. After 10-week treatment, patients receiving Silexan showed significantly more pronounced score reduction for HAMA item 'depressed mood' than those in the placebo group (p = 0.01). Significant superiority of Silexan over placebo could also be shown for mean MADRS or HAMD total score reduction (three studies; p < 0.01). Silexan-treated patients with more severe depressive symptoms at baseline showed more pronounced improvements than those with milder symptoms. Our meta-analysis clearly shows that Silexan has a beneficial effect on co-occurring depressive symptoms in patients with subthreshold anxiety and anxiety disorders and may, hence, lead to important therapeutic implications for depressive disorders., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Due to favorable antidepressant (AD) efficacy and tolerability, selective-serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are consistently recommended as substances of first choice for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in international guidelines. However, little is known about the real-world clinical correlates of patients primarily prescribed SSRIs in contrast to those receiving alternative first-line ADs., Methods: These secondary analyses are based on a naturalistic, multinational cross-sectional study conducted by the European Group for the Study of Resistant Depression at ten research sites. We compared the socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of 1410 patients with primary MDD, who were either prescribed SSRIs or alternative substances as first-line AD treatment, using chi-squared tests, analyses of covariance, and logistic regression analyses., Results: SSRIs were prescribed in 52.1% of MDD patients who showed lower odds for unemployment, current severity of depressive symptoms, melancholic features, suicidality, as well as current inpatient treatment compared to patients receiving alternative first-line ADs. Furthermore, patients prescribed SSRIs less likely received add-on therapies including AD combination and augmentation with antipsychotics, and exhibited a trend towards higher response rates., Conclusion: A more favorable socio-demographic and clinical profile associated with SSRIs in contrast to alternative first-line ADs may have guided European psychiatrists' treatment choice for SSRIs, rather than any relevant pharmacological differences in mechanisms of action of the investigated ADs. Our results must be cautiously interpreted in light of predictable biases resulting from the open treatment selection, the possible allocation of less severely ill patients to SSRIs as well as the cross-sectional study design that does not allow to ascertain any causal conclusions., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

About two thirds of the patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) do not sufficiently respond to monotherapy with antidepressants (ADs) which makes them reliant on further treatment approaches. Hereby, combination of different ADs and augmentation with second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) are widely used and recommended psychopharmacotherapeutic strategies. The present secondary analyses are based on an international, naturalistic, cross-sectional multicenter study conducted by the European Group for the Study of Resistant Depression. Comparing socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of 436 adult MDD patients receiving either SGAs (N = 191, 43.8%) or ADs (N = 245, 56.2%), that were additionally administered to their first-line AD psychopharmacotherapy, we aimed to identify possible trajectories of decision-making for clinicians regarding which treatment option to prefer in individual patients. Our most robust findings represent an association of SGA augmentation with the presence of psychotic symptoms, longer mean duration of lifetime psychiatric hospitalizations, employment of further augmentation strategies with mood-stabilizers and benzodiazepines, and a trend towards higher mean daily dosages of their first-line ADs and current suicidal risk. Treatment outcome was not significantly different between patients receiving either SGA augmentation or AD combination. Being aware of limitations inherent to the cross-sectional study design and the lack of randomization, more severe and rather chronic conditions in MDD seemed to encourage clinicians to choose SGA augmentation over AD combination. The fact that mood-stabilizers and/or benzodiazepines were more frequently co-administered with SGAs may represent a requirement of an overall refined psychopharmacotherapy including additional fast-acting agents with potent AD, tranquilizing and anti-suicidal effects in MDD patients experiencing challenging clinical manifestations. New glutamatergic substances seem to be promising in this regard., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Augmentation with second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) represents an evidence-based psychopharmacotherapeutic strategy recommended in case of insufficient response to the first-line antidepressant (AD) treatment in major depressive disorder (MDD). Comparative evidence regarding efficacy and prescription preferences of the individual SGAs is scarce., Methods: In the scope of this European, multi-site, naturalistic cross-sectional investigation with retrospective assessment of treatment outcome, we compared sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of 187 MDD patients receiving either quetiapine (n = 150) or aripiprazole (n = 37) as augmentation of their first-line AD psychopharmacotherapy., Results: Comorbid posttraumatic stress disorder and diabetes were significantly associated with aripiprazole augmentation in our primary and post-hoc binary logistic regression analyses. Furthermore, we identified an association between aripiprazole co-administration and the presence of additional psychotic features, higher rates of AD combination treatment, and a longer duration of psychiatric hospitalizations during the lifetime, which, however, lost significance after correcting for multiple comparisons. Regarding treatment outcome, we found a trend of higher response rates and greater reductions in severity of depressive symptoms in MDD patients dispensed quetiapine., Conclusions: Factors associated with a more chronic and severe profile of MDD seem to encourage clinicians to choose aripiprazole over quetiapine, that was, however, administered in the majority of our MDD patients, which might reflect the current approval situation allowing to prescribe exclusively quetiapine as on-label augmentation in MDD in Europe. Given the retrospective assessment of treatment response, the markedly smaller proportion of patients receiving aripiprazole augmentation generally showing an unfavorable disease profile, and the partially heterogeneous statistical robustness of our findings, further studies are required to elaborate on our observation and to generate unambiguous recommendations regarding the choice of first-line SGA augmentation in MDD., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of CINP.)

Background: We aimed to investigate the prescription pattern of pregabalin augmentation of antidepressants in major depressive disorder (MDD) and to explore variables associated with add-on pregabalin treatment., Methods: 1410 MDD patients participated in this naturalistic European multicenter study with retrospective assessment of treatment response. Analyses of covariance, chi-squared tests, and binary logistic regressions were accomplished to determine differences in socio-demographic and clinical characteristics between MDD patients with and without pregabalin augmentation., Results: Add-on pregabalin was established in 102 (7.23%) MDD patients. Compared to those without receiving pregabalin, pregabalin-treated patients were characterized by a significantly higher likelihood for older age (mean: 54.74 ± 13.08 vs 49.93 ± 14.13 years), unemployment (78.43% vs 51.23%), melancholic features (83.33% vs 58.94%), inpatient treatment (72.55% vs 31.65%), previous psychiatric hospitalizations (13.52 ± 24.82 vs 4.96 ± 19.93 weeks), any somatic comorbidity (68.63% vs 44.57%), comorbid hypertension (37.25% vs 17.51%), more severe depressive symptom severity at the onset of the current episode (mean MADRS: 37.55 ± 9.00 vs 33.79 ± 7.52), receiving augmentation/combination treatment strategies in general (mean number of psychotropic drugs: 3.64 ± 0.92 vs 2.07 ± 1.17), and with antidepressants (50.00% vs 27.91%) and antipsychotics (46.08% vs 24.08%) in particular., Limitations: Due to its observational cross-sectional study design, our patient sample might not be fully representative for MDD patients in primary care settings., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that add-on pregabalin is particularly administered in more severe/difficult-to-treat MDD conditions, whereas no association between the prescription of adjunctive pregabalin and comorbid anxiety symptoms could be determined., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Sex-related effects on the evolution and phenotype of major depressive disorder (MDD) were reported previously., Methods: This European multicenter cross-sectional study compared sociodemographic, clinical, and treatment patterns between males and females in a real-world sample of 1410 in- and outpatients with current MDD., Results: Male MDD patients (33.1%) were rather inpatients, suffered from moderate to high suicidality levels, received noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressants (ADs) as first-line AD treatment, generally higher mean AD daily doses, and showed a trend towards a more frequent administration of add-on treatments. Female MDD patients (66.9%) were rather outpatients, experienced lower suicidality levels, comorbid thyroid dysfunction, migraine, asthma, and a trend towards earlier disease onset., Conclusions: The identified divergencies may contribute to the concept of male and female depressive syndromes and serve as predictors of disease severity and course, as they reflect phenomena that were repeatedly related to treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Especially the greater necessity of inpatient treatment and more complex psychopharmacotherapy in men may reflect increased therapeutic efforts undertaken to treat suicidality and to avoid TRD. Hence, considering sex may guide the diagnostic and treatment processes towards targeting challenging clinical manifestations including comorbidities and suicidality, and prevention of TRD and chronicity., (© 2021 The Authors. Depression and Anxiety Published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Despite plenty of effective antidepressant (AD) treatments, the outcome of major depressive disorder (MDD) is often unsatisfactory, probably due to improvable exploitation of available therapies. This European, cross-sectional, naturalistic multicenter study investigated the frequency of additional psychotherapy in terms of a manual-driven psychotherapy (MDP) in 1410 adult in- and outpatients with MDD, who were primarily treated with AD psychopharmacotherapy. Socio-demographic and clinical patterns were compared between patients receiving both treatments and those lacking concomitant MDP. In a total of 1279 MDD patients (90.7%) with known status of additional MDP, those undergoing a psychopharmacotherapy-MDP combination (31.2%) were younger, higher educated, more often employed and less severely ill with lower odds for suicidality as compared to patients receiving exclusively psychopharmacotherapy (68.8%). They experienced an earlier mean age of MDD onset, melancholic features, comorbid asthma and migraine and received lower daily doses of their first-line ADs. While agomelatine was more often established in these patients, MDD patients without MDP received selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors more frequently. These two patient groups did not differ in terms of response, non-response and treatment resistant depression (TRD). Accordingly, the employment of additional MDP could not be related to better treatment outcomes in MDD. The fact that MDP was applied in a minority of patients with rather beneficial socio-demographic and clinical characteristics might reflect inferior accessibility of these psychotherapeutic techniques for socially and economically disadvantaged populations., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

There is still a debate, if melancholic symptoms can be seen rather as a more severe subtype of major depressive disorder (MDD) or as a separate diagnostic entity. The present European multicenter study comprising altogether 1410 MDD in- and outpatients sought to investigate the influence of the presence of melancholic features in MDD patients. Analyses of covariance, chi-squared tests, and binary logistic regression analyses were accomplished to determine differences in socio-demographic and clinical variables between MDD patients with and without melancholia. We found a prevalence rate of 60.71% for melancholic features in MDD. Compared to non-melancholic MDD patients, they were characterized by a significantly higher likelihood for higher weight, unemployment, psychotic features, suicide risk, inpatient treatment, severe depressive symptoms, receiving add-on medication strategies in general, and adjunctive treatment with antidepressants, antipsychotics, benzodiazepine (BZD)/BZD-like drugs, low-potency antipsychotics, and pregabalin in particular. With regard to the antidepressant pharmacotherapy, we found a less frequent prescription of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in melancholic MDD. No significant between-group differences were found for treatment response, non-response, and resistance. In summary, we explored primarily variables to be associated with melancholia which can be regarded as parameters for the presence of severe/difficult-to treat MDD conditions. Even if there is no evidence to realize any specific treatment strategy in melancholic MDD patients, their prescribed medication strategies were different from those for patients without melancholia., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: While the association between relationship status and the development of depressive symptoms in the general population were reported previously, its relation to the severity and the course of major depressive disorder (MDD) as well as the treatment patterns and response rates needs to be elucidated., Methods: The present international multicenter cross-sectional study performed by the European Group for the Study of Resistant Depression (GSRD) investigated socio-demographic and clinical patterns of relationship status in a real-world sample of 1410 adult in- and outpatients with MDD as primary diagnosis., Results: While 49.9% of all MDD patients were partnered, 25.4% were separated, and 24.8% were single. Single relationship status was linked to younger mean age, earlier mean age of onset, and current suicidal risk. Being separated was related to older mean age, unemployment, greater symptom severity, current suicidal risk, and add-on treatment strategies. Partnered relationship status was associated with less frequent current suicidal risk., Limitations: The retrospective assessment of treatment response that was exclusively based on psychopharmacotherapeutic strategies should be critically considered and weighed while interpreting the present results providing novel insights into the complex interaction of relationship status with the clinical phenotype of MDD., Conclusions: Although MDD patients living in relationships do not seem to be omitted from the evolution of MDD, they may be spared from chronicity and suicidality. Hence, being aware of the current relationship status might support clinicians in the diagnostic and therapeutic process towards optimized management of such challenging clinical phenomena and their negative consequences., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

As the course of schizophrenic disorders is often chronic, treatment guidelines recommend continuous maintenance treatment to prevent relapses, but antipsychotic drugs can cause many side effects. It, therefore, seems reasonable to try to reduce doses in stable phases of the illness or even try to stop medication. We conducted a 26 weeks, randomized, rater blind, feasibility study to examine individualized antipsychotic dose reduction versus continuous maintenance treatment (Register Number: NCT02307396). We included chronic, adult patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, who were treated with any antipsychotic drug except clozapine, who had not been hospitalized in the last 3 years and who were in symptomatic remission at baseline. The primary outcome was relapse of positive symptoms. Symptom severity, social functioning and side effects were also examined as secondary outcomes. 20 patients were randomized. Relapse rates in the two groups were not significantly different. No patient had to be hospitalized. One patient in the control group dropped out. The mean reduction of antipsychotic dose in the individualized dose-reduction group was 42%, however only one patient discontinued drug completely. There were no significant differences in efficacy or safety outcomes. This randomized trial provides evidence, that reduction of antipsychotic medication in chronic stable schizophrenic patients may be feasible. The results need to be confirmed in a larger trial with a longer follow-up period.

Objectives: Predictors for unfavorable treatment outcome in major depressive disorder (MDD) applicable for treatment selection are still lacking. The database of a longitudinal multicenter study on 1079 acutely depressed patients, performed by the German research network on depression (GRND), allows supervised and unsupervised learning to further elucidate the interplay of clinical and psycho-sociodemographic variables and their predictive impact on treatment outcome phenotypes., Experimental Procedures: Treatment response was defined by a change of HAM-D 17-item baseline score ≥50% and remission by the established threshold of ≤7, respectively, after up to eight weeks of inpatient treatment. After hierarchical symptom clustering and stratification by treatment subtypes (serotonin reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, antipsychotic, and lithium augmentation), prediction models for different outcome phenotypes were computed with random forest in a cross-center validation design. In total, 88 predictors were implemented., Results: Clustering revealed four distinct HAM-D subscores related to emotional, anxious, sleep, and appetite symptoms, respectively. After feature selection, classification models reached moderate to high accuracies up to 0.85. Highest accuracies were observed for the SSRI and TCA subgroups and for sleep and appetite symptoms, while anxious symptoms showed poor predictability., Conclusion: Our results support a decisive role for machine learning in the management of antidepressant treatment. Treatment- and symptom-specific algorithms may increase accuracies by reducing heterogeneity. Especially, predictors related to duration of illness, baseline depression severity, anxiety and somatic symptoms, and personality traits moderate treatment success. However, prospectives application of machine learning models will be necessary to prove their value for the clinic., (© 2020 The Authors. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The present multicenter study aimed at defining the clinical profile of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and comorbid migraine., Methods: Demographic and clinical information for 1410 MDD patients with vs without concurrent migraine were compared by descriptive statistics, analyses of covariance, and binary logistic regression analyses., Results: The point prevalence rate for comorbid migraine was 13.5% for female and 6.2% for male patients. MDD + migraine patients were significantly younger, heavier, more likely female, of non-Caucasian origin, outpatient, and suffering from asthma. The presence of MDD + migraine resulted in a significantly higher functional disability. First-line antidepressant treatment strategy revealed a trend towards agomelatine. Second-generation antipsychotics were significantly less often administered for augmentation treatment in migraineurs. Overall, MDD + migraine patients tended to respond worse to their pharmacotherapy., Conclusion: Treatment guidelines for comorbid depression and migraine are warranted to ensure optimal efficacy and avoid possible pitfalls in psychopharmacotherapy, including serotonin syndrome., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of CINP.)

Since many patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) do not satisfactorily respond to initial antidepressant monotherapy, add-on treatment strategies with other psychiatric compounds are often established. The present European multicenter cross-sectional study comprising 1410 MDD in- and outpatients investigated the prescription pattern of benzodiazepines as add-on treatment in the psychopharmacotherapy of MDD. Analyses of variance, chi-squared tests, and logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine differences in socio-demographic, clinical, and treatment characteristics between benzodiazepine users and non-users. The prescription rate for adjunctive benzodiazepine treatment amounted to 31.35%. The most often administered benzodiazepines were lorazepam (11.13%), clonazepam (6.74%), and alprazolam (6.60%). Benzodiazepine users exhibited more severe depressive symptoms expressed by a higher mean Montgomery and Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score at study entry (26.92 ± 11.07 vs 23.55 ± 11.23, p<.0001) and at the beginning of the current major depressive episode (35.74 ± 8.08 vs 33.31 ± 7.40, p<.0001). Furthermore, they were characterized by a higher proportion of patients receiving additional augmentation/combination medications with antidepressants (40.95% vs 24.28%, p<.0001), antipsychotics (41.63% vs 18.39%, p<.0001), and low-potency antipsychotics (10.18% vs 4.75%, p<.0001). Moreover, benzodiazepine prescription was associated with older age, unemployment, inpatient treatment, suicide risk, psychotic and melancholic features, comorbid panic disorder, agoraphobia, social phobia, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Taken together, our findings indicate that benzodiazepine augmentation in MDD is first of all established in severe/difficult-to-treat conditions and serves as predictor for the use of additional augmentation/combination treatment strategies., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest All other authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

In this meta-analysis, we aimed to estimate and compare the efficacy of add-on treatment of antidepressants with esketamine nasal spray and second-generation antipsychotics in patients with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder and inadequate response to antidepressants. Searching for acute-phase, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trials, we found 22 second-generation antipsychotic (n = 8363) and 3 intranasal esketamine (n = 641) studies. Mean change in the Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score served as outcome. We determined a higher mean difference (vs placebo) for the pooled esketamine nasal spray trials (mean difference = 4.09, 95% confidence interval: 2.01 to 6.17) than for the pooled second-generation antipsychotic augmentation trials (mean difference  = 2.05, 95% confidence interval: 1.51 to 2.59). Thus, the effect size for intranasal esketamine was nearly twice as high as those for the second-generation antipsychotics. This indicates high efficacy of add-on esketamine nasal spray in treatment-resistant major depressive disorder compared with other well-established, evidence-based pharmacological options such as augmentation with second-generation antipsychotics., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of CINP.)

Background: Bright light therapy (BLT) has been used as a treatment for seasonal affective disorder (SAD) for over 30 years. This meta-analysis was aimed to assess the efficacy of BLT in the treatment of SAD in adults., Method: We performed a systematic literature search including randomized, single- or double-blind clinical trials investigating BLT (≥1,000 lx, light box or light visor) against dim light (≤400 lx) or sham/low-density negative ion generators as placebo. Only first-period data were used from crossover trials. The primary outcome was the post-treatment depression score measured by validated scales, and the secondary outcome was the rate of response to treatment., Results: A total of 19 studies finally met our predefined inclusion criteria. BLT was superior over placebo with a standardized mean difference of -0.37 (95% CI: -0.63 to -0.12) for depression ratings (18 studies, 610 patients) and a risk ratio of 1.42 (95% CI: 1.08-1.85) for response to active treatment (16 studies, 559 patients). We found no evidence for a publication bias, but moderate heterogeneity of the studies and a moderate-to-high risk of bias., Conclusions: BLT can be regarded as an effective treatment for SAD, but the available evidence stems from methodologically heterogeneous studies with small-to-medium sample sizes, necessitating larger high-quality clinical trials., (© 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Objective: The major aim of this multicenter study of the European Group for the Study of Resistant Depression (GSRD) was to elucidate associations between major depressive disorder (MDD) and comorbid diabetes., Methods: Demographic and clinical information of 1410 patients with a primary MDD diagnosis according to DSM-IV were retrieved cross-sectionally between 2012 and 2016. By applying descriptive statistics, analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) and binary logistic regression analyses, a comparison between patient characteristics with and without comorbid diabetes was performed., Results: The point prevalence rate for comorbid diabetes across MDD patients was 6%. Individuals with MDD + comorbid diabetes were significantly older, heavier, more likely to be inpatient and diagnosed with additional comorbid chronic somatic diseases. In addition, current suicide risk was significantly increased and melancholic features were more likely pronounced. In general, patients in the MDD + diabetes group received a combination therapy with at least one additional antidepressant rather than various other augmentation strategies., Conclusion: Our analyses depict a lower prevalence rate of diabetes in MDD patients than previous studies. However, in light of the prevalence of diabetes in the geographical area of the study, we found an increased risk for individuals with depression compared to the general population. Current suicide risk is markedly elevated and has to be thoroughly assessed in every patient with comorbid diabetes. Depression severity and treatment response remained unaffected by concurrent diabetes in MDD., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The overview outlines two decades of research from the European Group for the Study of Resistant Depression (GSRD) that fundamentally impacted evidence-based algorithms for diagnostics and psychopharmacotherapy of treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Methods: The GSRD staging model characterising response, non-response and resistance to antidepressant (AD) treatment was applied to 2762 patients in eight European countries. Results: In case of non-response, dose escalation and switching between different AD classes did not show superiority over continuation of original AD treatment. Predictors for TRD were symptom severity, duration of the current major depressive episode (MDE), suicidality, psychotic and melancholic features, comorbid anxiety and personality disorders, add-on treatment, non-response to the first AD, adverse effects, high occupational level, recurrent disease course, previous hospitalisations, positive family history of MDD, early age of onset and novel associations of single nucleoid polymorphisms (SNPs) within the PPP3CC , ST8SIA2 , CHL1 , GAP43 and ITGB3 genes and gene pathways associated with neuroplasticity, intracellular signalling and chromatin silencing. A prediction model reaching accuracy of above 0.7 highlighted symptom severity, suicidality, comorbid anxiety and lifetime MDEs as the most informative predictors for TRD. Applying machine-learning algorithms, a signature of three SNPs of the BDNF , PPP3CC and HTR2A genes and lacking melancholia predicted treatment response. Conclusions: The GSRD findings offer a unique and balanced perspective on TRD representing foundation for further research elaborating on specific clinical and genetic hypotheses and treatment strategies within appropriate study-designs, especially interaction-based models and randomized controlled trials.

The objective of the present multicenter study was to elucidate relevant associations between major depressive disorder (MDD) and comorbid hypertension that are known for their frequent co-occurrence and interaction with regard to functional disability. Demographic and clinical information of altogether 1410 patients were retrieved cross-sectionally. Consecutively, a comparison of patient characteristics between MDD subjects with and without comorbid hypertension were conducted by descriptive statistics, analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) and binary logistic regression analyses. The point prevalence rate for comorbid hypertension was 18.9%. Patients with MDD+comorbid hypertension were significantly older, heavier, more likely to be in a relationship, inpatient and diagnosed with further comorbid chronic somatic diseases including heart disease, diabetes and thyroid dysfunction. In addition, individuals with MDD and comorbid hypertension exhibited a higher score at the Montgomery and Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) at onset of the current depressive episode. Melancholic features of depression showed a higher probability. The first line antidepressant treatment did not differ significantly between MDD subjects with versus without comorbid hypertension. Augmentation with pregabalin and combination with one additional antidepressant, however, were more common in the MDD+hypertension group. In conclusion, high blood pressure may influence illness severity and is associated with a distinct psychopathology in MDD patients. Patients with MDD and comorbid hypertension, that seems to be underdiagnosed in MDD patients compared to the general population, are subject to additional somatic diseases in almost 100 percent of the cases and hence, need to be screened and treated accordingly., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. and ECNP. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To elucidate the impact of the presence of psychotic features in patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder (MDD) on sociodemographic, psychosocial, clinical, and response characteristics., Methods: A total of 1,410 DSM-IV-TR MDD patients were included in the present European multicenter study, which was conducted between 2011 and 2016. Analyses of covariance, χ² tests, and binary logistic regression analyses were performed to explore differences in sociodemographic and clinical variables between MDD patients with and without psychotic symptoms., Results: A prevalence rate of 10.92% for psychotic features was found in MDD. Compared to nonpsychotic MDD patients, those with psychotic features were characterized by a higher likelihood for melancholic characteristics (73.38% vs 59.16%, P = .0006), a higher rate of current suicide risk (60.39% vs 44.27%, P = .0002), greater likelihood of receiving inpatient treatment (55.84% vs 32.01%, P < .0001), greater depressive symptom severity (measured by various rating scales), and more often receiving augmentation/combination treatment strategies in general (81.17% vs 58.12%, P < .0001) and add-on therapy with antipsychotics (50.00% vs 22.69%, P < .0001) and benzodiazepines (47.40% vs 31.29%, P = .0001) in particular. Moreover, psychotic symptoms in MDD were highly predictive of treatment resistance, expressed by a more than 2.2-fold higher likelihood for resistance compared to nonpsychotic MDD patients (79.87% vs 35.75%, P < .0001). Only 3.25% of the patients with psychotic MDD achieved treatment response (vs 27.15% of those with nonpsychotic MDD, P < .0001)., Conclusions: These findings suggest that adequate diagnosis of psychotic features in MDD should be ensured in routine clinical care. As a combination of antipsychotics and antidepressants represents the first-line treatment option in psychotic MDD, the finding of a 2-fold higher prescription rate for antipsychotic drugs in psychotic versus nonpsychotic MDD patients reflects the current evidence., (© Copyright 2019 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)

Background: Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is the most problematic outcome of depression in terms of functional impairment, suicidal thoughts and decline in physical health.AimsTo investigate the genetic predictors of TRD using a genome-wide approach to contribute to the development of precision medicine., Method: A sample recruited by the European Group for the Study of Resistant Depression (GSRD) including 1148 patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) was characterised for the occurrence of TRD (lack of response to at least two adequate antidepressant treatments) and genotyped using the Infinium PsychArray. Three clinically relevant patient groups were considered: TRD, responders and non-responders to the first antidepressant trial, thus outcomes were based on comparisons of these groups. Genetic analyses were performed at the variant, gene and gene-set (i.e. functionally related genes) level. Additive regression models of the outcomes and relevant covariates were used in the GSRD participants and in a fixed-effect meta-analysis performed between GSRD, STAR*D (n = 1316) and GENDEP (n = 761) participants., Results: No individual polymorphism or gene was associated with TRD, although some suggestive signals showed enrichment in cytoskeleton regulation, transcription modulation and calcium signalling. Two gene sets (GO:0043949 and GO:0000183) were associated with TRD versus response and TRD versus response and non-response to the first treatment in the GSRD participants and in the meta-analysis, respectively (corrected P = 0.030 and P = 0.027)., Conclusions: The identified gene sets are involved in cyclic adenosine monophosphate mediated signal and chromatin silencing, two processes previously implicated in antidepressant action. They represent possible biomarkers to implement personalised antidepressant treatments and targets for new antidepressants.Declaration of interestD.S. has received grant/research support from GlaxoSmithKline and Lundbeck; has served as a consultant or on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen and Lundbeck. S.M. has been a consultant or served on advisory boards for: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Forest, Johnson & Johnson, Leo, Lundbeck, Medelink, Neurim, Pierre Fabre, Richter. S.K. has received grant/research support from Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Organon, Sepracor and Servier; has served as a consultant or on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Pfizer, Organon, Schwabe, Sepracor, Servier, Janssen and Novartis; and has served on speakers' bureaus for AstraZeneca, Eli Lily, Lundbeck, Schwabe, Sepracor, Servier, Pierre Fabre, Janssen and Neuraxpharm. J.Z. has received grant/research support from Lundbeck, Servier, Brainsway and Pfizer, has served as a consultant or on advisory boards for Servier, Pfizer, Abbott, Lilly, Actelion, AstraZeneca and Roche and has served on speakers' bureaus for Lundbeck, Roch, Lilly, Servier, Pfizer and Abbott. J.M. is a member of the Board of the Lundbeck International Neuroscience Foundation and of Advisory Board of Servier. A.S. is or has been consultant/speaker for: Abbott, AbbVie, Angelini, Astra Zeneca, Clinical Data, Boehringer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Innovapharma, Italfarmaco, Janssen, Lundbeck, Naurex, Pfizer, Polifarma, Sanofi and Servier. C.M.L. receives research support from RGA UK Services Limited.

This cross-sectional European multicenter study with retrospective assessment of treatment response sought to determine variables associated with the administration of augmentation strategies with second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) and lithium in the pharmacotherapy of major depressive disorder (MDD). In 349 DSM-IV-TR MDD patients, differences in socio-demographic, clinical, treatment, and pharmacological features between participants receiving add-on treatment of their antidepressants with either SGAs (n = 318) or lithium (n = 31) were investigated using analyses of covariance, chi-squared tests, and binary logistic regression analyses. As only significant between-group difference, we found SGA augmentation (compared with lithium augmentation) to be associated with high depressive symptom severity expressed by a higher mean Montgomery and Åsberg Depression Rating (MADRS) total score (27.19 ± 11.35 vs 18.87 ± 12.88, F = 14.82, p = < .0001) and a higher mean 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) total score (21.27 ± 9.30 vs 13.74 ± 9.11, F = 18.60, p = < .0001). No significant differences for socio-demographic features, psychotic symptoms, suicidality, psychiatric and somatic comorbidities, antidepressant pharmacotherapy, and other add-on medications could be seen. Even if there was no significant superiority of one augmentation strategy with regard to treatment response pattern, a trend whereupon adjunctive SGAs were more likely dispensed in treatment-resistant and difficult-to-treat MDD conditions could be observed. In terms of the prescription pattern, we could demonstrate that lithium is less frequently used than SGAs in the clinical routine care which may reflect the need of continuous plasma level determinations and the anticipation of adverse effects., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Rapid anti-suicidal and antidepressant effects of ketamine have repeatedly been confirmed in unipolar and bipolar depression. Although meaningful antidepressant efficacy of ketamine has also been shown in depressed patients with a history of psychotic symptoms, its administration in psychotic disorders has largely been neglected due to its potential to exacerbate dissociative or psychotic symptoms. Presenting a case of a young female inpatient suffering from schizophrenia with a severe post-psychotic depression, we demonstrate a robust anti-suicidal and antidepressant effect of S-ketamine infusions administered thrice weekly for 3 weeks in total. Importantly, no relevant psychotic or dissociative symptoms occurred during the whole augmentation treatment period leading to a sustained remission of depressive symptoms and suicidality. Our safe and effective experience with intravenous S-ketamine might encourage researchers and clinicians to widen its administration range beyond the diagnosis of depression to enrich the current knowledge of ketamine effects in psychotic disorders., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. and ECNP. All rights reserved.)

This multicenter study of the European Group for the Study of Resistant Depression (GSRD) aimed to explore the association between major depressive disorder (MDD) and comorbid thyroid disease. A total number of 1410 patients` characteristics in terms of demographic and clinical information were compared between MDD subjects with and without concurrent thyroid disease using descriptive statistics, analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) and binary logistic regression analyses. We determined a point prevalence rate for comorbid hypothyroidism of 13.2% and 1.6% for comorbid hyperthyroidism respectively. Patients with MDD+comorbid hypothyroidism were significantly older, more likely to be female, inpatient and suffering from other comorbid chronic somatic conditions. Furthermore, MADRS score at onset of the current depressive episode was significantly higher, psychotic features of depression were more likely pronounced. Overall, patients in the MDD+comorbid hypothyroidism group were rather treated with a combination of drugs, for example, pregabalin, antipsychotic drugs and mood stabilizers. In the MDD+comorbid hyperthyroidism group patients were significantly older, of Caucasian origin and diagnosed with other somatic comorbidities. In conclusion, our analyses suggest that abnormal thyroid function, especially hypothyroidism, is linked to depression severity and associated with distinct psychopathologic features of depression. However, comorbid thyroid disease has no influence on treatment response. A combination or augmentation of psychopharmacological drugs, especially with antipsychotics, mood stabilizers and pregabalin is more likely in patients with hypothyroid conditions. Thyroid disorder is frequently found in combination with other chronic somatic diseases including hypertension and heart disease., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. and ECNP. All rights reserved.)

Background: This European multicenter study aimed to elucidate suicidality in major depressive disorder. Previous surveys suggest a prevalence of suicidality in major depressive disorder of ≥50%, but little is known about the association of different degrees of suicidality with socio-demographic, psychosocial, and clinical characteristics., Methods: We stratified 1410 major depressive disorder patients into 3 categories of suicidality based on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression item 3 (suicidality) ratings (0=no suicidality; 1-2=mild/moderate suicidality; 3-4=severe suicidality). Chi-squared tests, analyses of covariance, and Spearman correlation analyses were applied for the data analyses., Results: The prevalence rate of suicidality in major depressive disorder amounted to 46.67% (Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression item 3 score ≥1). 53.33% were allocated into the no, 38.44% into the mild/moderate, and 8.23% into the severe suicidality patient group. Due to the stratification of our major depressive disorder patient sample according to different levels of suicidality, we identified some socio-demographic, psychosocial, and clinical variables differentiating from the patient group without suicidality already in presence of mild/moderate suicidality (depressive symptom severity, treatment resistance, psychotic features, add-on medications in general), whereas others separated only when severe suicidality was manifest (inpatient treatment, augmentation with antipsychotics and benzodiazepines, melancholic features, somatic comorbidities)., Conclusions: As even mild/moderate suicidality is associated with a failure of achieving treatment response, adequate recognition of this condition should be ensured in the clinical practice.

Background: This cross-sectional European multicenter study examined the association between major depressive disorder (MDD) and comorbid obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD)., Methods: Socio-demographic, clinical, and treatment features of 1346 adult MDD patients were compared between MDD subjects with and without concurrent OCD using descriptive statistics, analyses of covariance (ANCOVA), and binary logistic regression analyses., Results: We determined a point prevalence of comorbid OCD in MDD of 1.65%. In comparison to the MDD control group without concurrent OCD, a higher proportion of patients in the MDD + comorbid OCD group displayed concurrent panic disorder (31.81% vs 7.77%, p<.001), suicide risk (52.80% vs 44.81%, p=.04), polypsychopharmacy (95.45% vs 60.21%, p=.001), and augmentation treatment with antipsychotics (50.00% vs 25.46%, p=.01) and benzodiazepines (68.18% vs 33.31%, p=.001). Moreover, they were treated with higher mean doses of their antidepressant drugs (in fluoxetine equivalents: 48.99mg/day ± 18.81 vs 39.68mg/day ± 20.75, p=.04). In the logistic regression analyses, comorbid panic disorder (odds ratio (OR)=4.17, p=.01), suicide risk (OR=2.56, p=.04), simultaneous treatment with more psychiatric drugs (OR=1.51, p=<.05), polypsychopharmacy (OR=14.29, p=.01), higher antidepressant dosing (OR=1.01, p=<.05), and augmentation with antipsychotics (OR=2.94, p=.01) and benzodiazepines (OR=4.35, p=.002) were significantly associated with comorbid OCD., Conclusion: In summary, our findings suggest that concurrent OCD in MDD (1) has a low prevalence rate compared to the reverse prevalence rates of comorbid MDD in OCD, (2) provokes higher suicide risk, and (3) is associated with a characteristic prescription pattern reflected by a high amount of polypsychopharmaceutical treatment strategies comprising particularly augmentation with antipsychotics and benzodiazepines., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Initial improvement in the first weeks of antidepressant (AD) treatment is a useful early predictor of complete AD response. We performed a meta-analysis of AD studies to investigate whether a partial decrease in depressive symptoms by week 4 was associated with response and remission by weeks 6-14 in major depressive disorder (MDD). Finally, we focused on treatment-resistant depression (TRD: lack of response to prior AD) to test the impact of early improvement on a second AD treatment outcome and to compare different switching strategies., Methods: Meta-analysis was conducted on AD naturalistic studies published between 01.01.2000 and 06.30.2017. TRD was an exclusion criterion. TRD was analyzed in 407 MDD patients treated with venlafaxine for 6 weeks. The MADRS was used to define very early improvement (VEI: > 20% decrease at week 2), early improvement (EI: > 30% decrease at week 4) and remission (week 6 MADRS < 10). A theoretical model was used to simulate AD switch in TRD patients who failed to achieve remission (Algorithm A), VEI (Algorithm B) or EI (Algorithm C)., Results: Our meta-analysis (9 studies; N = 6185) showed significant associations between early improvement, response (OR: 3.28 95% C.I: 2.06-5.20) and remission (OR: 2.10 95% C.I: 1.53-2.87). 24.6% of TRD sample remitted. VEI was a poor outcome predictor: sensitivity = 0.52 (0.40-0.63); specificity = 0.82 (0.76-0.86); AUC = 0.67 (0.62-0.71). EI had a moderate predictive power: sensitivity = 0.87 (0.77-0.93); specificity = 0.71 (0.66-0.77); AUC = 0.76 (0.71-0.80). The best treatment scenario was Algorithm C (switch after 4 weeks) in which remission rate was marginally increased (35.1% vs 33.7% of Algorithm A). Algorithm B (switch after 2 weeks) led to a 4.3% decrease in remission compared to Algorithm A., Limitations: Inclusion of a naturalistic sample without a control arm; simulation of treatments., Conclusion: Although literature data suggest a correlation between an initial improvement of depressive symptoms and later response and remission during AD treatment, our analysis shows that such an early improvement is not a reliable outcome predictor in TRD. The nature of TRD is complex and different biological mechanisms and treatments might be necessary for TRD patients., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The study objective was to generate a prediction model for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) using machine learning featuring a large set of 47 clinical and sociodemographic predictors of treatment outcome., Method: 552 Patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder (MDD) according to DSM-IV criteria were enrolled between 2011 and 2016. TRD was defined as failure to reach response to antidepressant treatment, characterized by a Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score below 22 after at least 2 antidepressant trials of adequate length and dosage were administered. RandomForest (RF) was used for predicting treatment outcome phenotypes in a 10-fold cross-validation., Results: The full model with 47 predictors yielded an accuracy of 75.0%. When the number of predictors was reduced to 15, accuracies between 67.6% and 71.0% were attained for different test sets. The most informative predictors of treatment outcome were baseline MADRS score for the current episode; impairment of family, social, and work life; the timespan between first and last depressive episode; severity; suicidal risk; age; body mass index; and the number of lifetime depressive episodes as well as lifetime duration of hospitalization., Conclusions: With the application of the machine learning algorithm RF, an efficient prediction model with an accuracy of 75.0% for forecasting treatment outcome could be generated, thus surpassing the predictive capabilities of clinical evaluation. We also supply a simplified algorithm of 15 easily collected clinical and sociodemographic predictors that can be obtained within approximately 10 minutes, which reached an accuracy of 70.6%. Thus, we are confident that our model will be validated within other samples to advance an accurate prediction model fit for clinical usage in TRD., (© Copyright 2017 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)

This naturalistic European multicenter study aimed to elucidate the association between major depressive disorder (MDD) and comorbid anxiety disorders. Demographic and clinical information of 1346 MDD patients were compared between those with and without concurrent anxiety disorders. The association between explanatory variables and the presence of comorbid anxiety disorders was examined using binary logistic regression analyses. 286 (21.2%) of the participants exhibited comorbid anxiety disorders, 10.8% generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), 8.3% panic disorder, 8.1% agoraphobia, and 3.3% social phobia. MDD patients with comorbid anxiety disorders were characterized by younger age (social phobia), outpatient status (agoraphobia), suicide risk (any anxiety disorder, panic disorder, agoraphobia, social phobia), higher depressive symptom severity (GAD), polypsychopharmacy (panic disorder, agoraphobia), and a higher proportion receiving augmentation treatment with benzodiazepines (any anxiety disorder, GAD, panic disorder, agoraphobia, social phobia) and pregabalin (any anxiety disorder, GAD, panic disorder). The results in terms of treatment response were conflicting (better response for panic disorder and poorer for GAD). The logistic regression analyses revealed younger age (any anxiety disorder, social phobia), outpatient status (agoraphobia), suicide risk (agoraphobia), severe depressive symptoms (any anxiety disorder, GAD, social phobia), poorer treatment response (GAD), and increased administration of benzodiazepines (any anxiety disorder, agoraphobia, social phobia) and pregabalin (any anxiety disorder, GAD, panic disorder) to be associated with comorbid anxiety disorders. Our findings suggest that the various anxiety disorders subtypes display divergent clinical characteristics and are associated with different variables. Especially comorbid GAD appears to be characterized by high symptom severity and poor treatment response., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This international, multicenter, cross-sectional study comprising 1346 adult in- and outpatients with major depressive disorder (MDD) investigated the association between MDD as primary diagnosis and comorbid post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In a cross-sectional data collection process, the presence of comorbid PTSD was determined by the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) and the patients' socio-demographic, clinical, psychopharmacological, and response information were obtained. Clinical features between MDD with and without concurrent PTSD were compared using descriptive statistics, analyses of covariance (ANCOVA), and binary logistic regression analyses. 1.49% of the MDD patients suffered from comorbid PTSD. Significantly more MDD + comorbid PTSD patients exhibited atypical features, comorbid anxiety disorders (any comorbid anxiety disorder, panic disorder, agoraphobia, and social phobia), comorbid bulimia nervosa, current suicide risk, and augmentation treatment with low-dose antipsychotic drugs. In the binary logistic regression analyses, the presence of atypical features (odds ratio (OR) = 4.49, 95%CI:1.01-20.12; p≤.05), any comorbid anxiety disorder (OR = 3.89, 95%CI:1.60-9.44; p = .003), comorbid panic disorder (OR = 6.45, 95%CI:2.52-16.51; p = .001), comorbid agoraphobia (OR = 6.51, 95%CI:2.54-16.68; p≤.001), comorbid social phobia (OR = 6.16, 95%CI:1.71-22.17; p≤.001), comorbid bulimia nervosa (OR = 10.39, 95%CI:1.21-88.64; p = .03), current suicide risk (OR = 3.58, 95%CI:1.30-9.91; p = .01), and augmentation with low-potency antipsychotics (OR = 6.66, 95%CI:2.50-17.77; p<.001) were associated with concurrent PTSD in predominant MDD. Major findings of this study were (1.) the much lower prevalence rate of comorbid PTSD in predominant MDD compared to the reverse prevalence rates of concurrent MDD in primary PTSD, (2.) the high association to comorbid anxiety disorders, and (3.) the increased suicide risk due to concurrent PTSD., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. and ECNP. All rights reserved.)

Treatment resistance to the antidepressive pharmacotherapy represents one of the most important clinical challenges in the pharmacological management of unipolar depression. In this review, we aimed to summarise the evidence for various pharmacological treatment options in therapy-resistant unipolar depression derived from clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and treatment guidelines. The first measure in case of insufficient response to the initial antidepressant monotherapy contains the debarment of 'pseudo-resistance', potentially caused by inadequate dose and treatment duration of the antidepressant, insufficient plasma levels, non-compliance of the patient regarding medication intake or relevant psychiatric and/or somatic comorbidities. Applying a dose escalation of the current antidepressant cannot be generally recommended as evidence-based treatment option and the efficacy depends on the class of antidepressants. There is no compelling evidence for a switch to another, new antidepressant compound after insufficient response to a previous antidepressant. The combination of two antidepressants should be preferentially established with antidepressants characterised by different mechanisms of action (e.g. reuptake inhibitors together with presynaptic autoreceptor inhibitors). At present, the most convincing body of evidence exists for the augmentation of antidepressants with second-generation antipsychotic drugs and lithium. Hence, both strategies are consistently advised by treatment guidelines as pharmacological first-line strategy in treatment-resistant depression.

Background: As many patients with unipolar depression do not respond sufficiently to initial antidepressant monotherapy, a dose increase of the current administered antidepressant (dose escalation, high-dose treatment) is frequently carried out as next treatment measure., Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis which included all double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a dose increase of antidepressants directly to continuation of standard-dose treatment in unipolar depressive patients who were non- responders to standard-dose pharmacotherapy. A mean change in the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) total score was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were response rates and discontinuation rates due to any reason, inefficacy, and adverse effects. Hedges g and risk ratios were calculated as effect sizes., Results: Seven double-blind RCTs (8 study arms) representing 1,208 participants were included. Fluoxetine (N [number of studies] = 2, n [number of patients] = 448), sertraline (N = 2, n = 272), paroxetine (N = 2, n = 146), duloxetine (N = 1, n = 255), and maprotiline (N = 1, n = 87) were investigated. Dose escalation was not more efficacious in HAM-D total score reduction than maintaining standard-dose treatment, neither for the pooled antidepressant group (N = 7, n = 999; Hedges g = -0.04, 95% CI: -0.20 to 0.12; p = 0.63) nor the individual antidepressants. No differences could be determined for response rates, all-cause discontinuation, and drop-outs due to inefficacy. Significantly more patients in the dose escalation group dropped out due to adverse effects than in the standard-dose continuation group. The metaregressions indicate no influence of baseline symptom severity or amounts of dose increments on effect sizes., Conclusions: According to our meta-analytic findings, dose escalation after initial non-response to standard-dose pharmacotherapy cannot be regarded as general evidence-based treatment option in unipolar depression., (© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

This multicenter, cross-sectional study with retrospective assessment of treatment response evaluated the current prescription trends and pharmacological treatment strategies applied in European university/academic psychiatric centers in unipolar depression. Altogether, 1181 adult in- and outpatients with major depressive disorder (MDD) were enrolled in 9 academic sites in 8 European countries. Socio-demographic, clinical, and medication information were retrieved and the present symptom severity was assessed by the Montgomery and Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). The symptom improvement during the current MDD episode was covered by retrospective MADRS measurements. Beyond descriptive statistics, analyses of variance (ANOVA) and Spearman correlation analyses were accomplished to determine the influence of symptom severity and treatment response on the prescription patterns. 53.4% of all MDD patients received a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) and 23.6% a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) as first-line treatment. The majority of participants (59.4%) were treated with polypharmaceutical strategies (median: 2 psychiatric compounds per patient) and for the number of individual drugs we found a significant correlation with the current MADRS total score and the MADRS total score change during the present depressive episode. Benzodiazepines (33.2% of patients), antidepressants (29.0%), antipsychotics (24.2%), and mood stabilizers (10.1%) were the most frequently prescribed adjunctive agents. There were no significant differences between the different psychopharmacological classes used as augmentors in terms of symptom severity and treatment response. In summary, this international cross-sectional study revealed the widespread use of polypharmaceutical treatment strategies in European tertiary psychiatric treatment centers for the management of MDD., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier B.V. and ECNP. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Narrative, unsystematic reviews revealed no differences in efficacy between the various first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs) resulting in the psychopharmacological assumption of comparable efficacy between the different FGAs. We sought to determine if the assumption of comparable efficacy of all FGAs can be regarded as evidence-based using meta-analytic statistics., Methods: A systematic literature survey (Cochrane Schizophrenia Group trial register) was applied to identify all RCTs that compared oral haloperidol with another oral FGA in schizophrenia. Primary outcome was dichotomous treatment response. Secondary outcomes were symptom severity measured by rating scales, discontinuation rates, and specific adverse effects., Results: Altogether, 79 RCTs with 4343 participants published between 1962 and 1999 were included. We found a significant between-group difference only between haloperidol and nemonapride, but not for the remaining 19 investigated FGAs. There were no significant differences for discontinuation rates., Conclusions: As most of the single meta-analytic comparisons can be regarded as underpowered, the evidence for the assumption of comparable efficacy of all FGAs is inconclusive. We therefore cannot confirm or reject the statements of previous narrative, unsystematic reviews in this regard. Our findings were limited by the small sample size in the individual comparisons and the low methodological quality in many included studies.

Importance: In treatment-resistant schizophrenia, clozapine is considered the standard treatment. However, clozapine use has restrictions owing to its many adverse effects. Moreover, an increasing number of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of other antipsychotics have been published., Objective: To integrate all the randomized evidence from the available antipsychotics used for treatment-resistant schizophrenia by performing a network meta-analysis., Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biosis, PsycINFO, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, World Health Organization International Trial Registry, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched up to June 30, 2014., Study Selection: At least 2 independent reviewers selected published and unpublished single- and double-blind RCTs in treatment-resistant schizophrenia (any study-defined criterion) that compared any antipsychotic (at any dose and in any form of administration) with another antipsychotic or placebo., Data Extraction and Synthesis: At least 2 independent reviewers extracted all data into standard forms and assessed the quality of all included trials with the Cochrane Collaboration's risk-of-bias tool. Data were pooled using a random-effects model in a Bayesian setting., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was efficacy as measured by overall change in symptoms of schizophrenia. Secondary outcomes included change in positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia, categorical response to treatment, dropouts for any reason and for inefficacy of treatment, and important adverse events., Results: Forty blinded RCTs with 5172 unique participants (71.5% men; mean [SD] age, 38.8 [3.7] years) were included in the analysis. Few significant differences were found in all outcomes. In the primary outcome (reported as standardized mean difference; 95% credible interval), olanzapine was more effective than quetiapine (-0.29; -0.56 to -0.02), haloperidol (-0. 29; -0.44 to -0.13), and sertindole (-0.46; -0.80 to -0.06); clozapine was more effective than haloperidol (-0.22; -0.38 to -0.07) and sertindole (-0.40; -0.74 to -0.04); and risperidone was more effective than sertindole (-0.32; -0.63 to -0.01). A pattern of superiority for olanzapine, clozapine, and risperidone was seen in other efficacy outcomes, but results were not consistent and effect sizes were usually small. In addition, relatively few RCTs were available for antipsychotics other than clozapine, haloperidol, olanzapine, and risperidone. The most surprising finding was that clozapine was not significantly better than most other drugs., Conclusions and Relevance: Insufficient evidence exists on which antipsychotic is more efficacious for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, and blinded RCTs-in contrast to unblinded, randomized effectiveness studies-provide little evidence of the superiority of clozapine compared with other second-generation antipsychotics. Future clozapine studies with high doses and patients with extremely treatment-refractory schizophrenia might be most promising to change the current evidence.

Background: Many people with schizophrenia do not achieve a satisfactory treatment response with ordinary anti-psychotic drug treatment. In these cases, various add-on medications are used, among them lithium., Objectives: To assess whether:1. Lithium alone is an effective treatment for schizophrenia, schizophrenia-like psychoses and schizoaffective psychoses; and2. Lithium augmentation of antipsychotic medication is an effective treatment for the same illnesses., Search Methods: In July 2012, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. This search was updated on January 20, 2015. For the first version of the review, we also contacted pharmaceutical companies and authors of relevant studies to identify further trials and obtain original participant data., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of lithium compared with antipsychotics or placebo (or no intervention), whether as sole treatment or as an adjunct to antipsychotic medication, in the treatment of schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses or both., Data Collection and Analysis: We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data, we calculated random-effects meta-analyses, risk ratios (RRs), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to create 'Summary of findings' tables and assessed risk of bias for included studies., Main Results: The update search in 2012 detected two further studies that met our inclusion criteria. We did not find any further studies that met our inclusion criteria in the 2015 search. This review now includes 22 studies, with a total of 763 participants (median mean age: 35 years, range: 26 to 72 years). Most studies were small, of short duration, and incompletely reported. As we detected a high risk of bias in many studies, the overall methodological quality of the included sample was rather low.Three small studies comparing lithium with placebo as the sole treatment showed no difference in any of the outcomes we analysed.In eight studies comparing lithium with antipsychotic drugs as the sole treatment, more participants in the lithium group left the studies early (eight RCTs; n = 270, RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.11, low quality evidence).Thirteen studies examined whether the augmentation of antipsychotic drugs with lithium salts is more effective than antipsychotic drugs alone. More participants who received lithium augmentation had a clinically significant response (10 RCTs; n = 396, RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.97, low quality evidence). However, this effect became non-significant when we excluded participants with schizoaffective disorders in a sensitivity analysis (seven RCTs; n = 272, RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.81), when we excluded non-double-blind studies (seven RCTs; n = 224, RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.96), or when we excluded studies with high attrition (nine RCTs; n = 355, RR 1.67, CI 0.93 to 3.00). The overall acceptability of treatment (measured by the number of participants leaving the studies early) was not significantly different between groups (11 RCTs; n = 320, RR 1.89, CI 0.93 to 3.84, very low quality evidence). Few studies reported on side effects. There were no significant differences, but the database is too limited to make any judgement in this regard. For example, there were no data on thyroid dysfunction and kidney problems - two major and well-known side effects of lithium., Authors' Conclusions: The evidence base for the use of lithium in schizophrenia is limited to 22 studies of overall low methodological quality. There is no randomised trial-based evidence that lithium on its own is an effective treatment for people with schizophrenia. There is some GRADE low quality evidence that augmentation of antipsychotics with lithium is effective, but the effects are not significant when more prone-to-bias open RCTs are excluded. Nevertheless, further large and well-designed trials are justified. These should concentrate on two target groups: (1) people with no affective symptoms, so that trialists can determine whether lithium has an effect on the core symptoms of schizophrenia, and (2) people with schizoaffective disorders for whom lithium is widely used in clinical practice, although there is no evidence to support this use.

Background: Non-response to an initial antipsychotic trial emerges frequently in the pharmacological management of schizophrenia. Increasing the dose (high-dose treatment, dose escalation) is an often applied strategy in this regard, but there are currently no meta-analytic data available to ascertain the evidence of this treatment option., Methods: We systematically searched for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a dose increase directly to the continuation of standard-dose medication in patients with initial non-response to a prospective standard-dose pharmacotherapy with the same antipsychotic compound. Primary outcome was mean change in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) or Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) total score. Secondary outcomes were positive and negative symptoms, response rates, and attrition rates. Hedges's g and risks ratios were calculated as effect sizes and the influence of the amount of the dose increase was examined by meta-regressions., Results: Altogether, five trials with 348 patients investigating dose escalation with quetiapine, ziprasidone, haloperidol, and fluphenazine could be included. We did not find any significant difference for the mean PANSS/BPRS score change between the dose-increase and control group, neither for the pooled antipsychotic group nor for the individual antipsychotic drugs. Moreover, there were no between-group differences in positive and negative symptoms, response rates, and drop-out rates. The meta-regressions indicate no significant influence of the different amounts of dose increments on effect sizes., Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests no evidence for a dose-escalation of the investigated antipsychotic drugs fluphenazine, haloperidol, quetiapine, and ziprasidone in case of initial non-response to standard-dose pharmacotherapy., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

An increase in placebo response is often cited as rationale for the continuously diminishing drug-placebo differences in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating antipsychotic and antidepressant drugs. As a consequence, the probability for negative study results in placebo-controlled RCTs grows. This alarming trend conveys the impression that the newer marked psychopharmacological medications are less efficacious compared to the older ones although particularly trial methodological reasons contribute to the mitigation of the drug-placebo contrasts over the last decades. With regard to antipsychotic RCTs, the present article aims to elucidate the magnitude of the raising placebo response, factors contributing to this increase, and potential reasons for this phenomenon. Therefore, we summarize and critically discuss the findings of two recent meta-analyses on this topic. Both research projects revealed that the mean improvement of schizophrenic symptoms in the placebo groups of antipsychotic trials increased considerably over time. Factors that were significantly associated with larger placebo response in antipsychotic trials comprise with respect to participants characteristics younger age and shorter duration of illness. The results in terms of symptom severity at baseline were conflictive. In terms of trial methodology factors, shorter study duration, a larger number of study sites and participants, fewer academic/university sites, and a lower percentage of patients randomized to placebo were identified as potential predictors for high placebo response. The implications of these findings for the interpretation of antipsychotic trial results and meta-analyses are presented., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Background: Many patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder do not respond adequately to serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Augmentation with antipsychotic drugs can be beneficial in this regard. However, since new relevant randomized controlled trials evaluating new antipsychotics were conducted, a recalculation of the effect sizes appears necessary., Methods: We meta-analyzed all double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials comparing augmentation of serotonin reuptake inhibitors with antipsychotics to placebo supplementation in treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder. The primary outcome was mean change in the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale total score. Secondary outcomes were obsessions, compulsions, response rates, and attrition rates. The data collection process was conducted independently by 2 authors. Hedges's g and risks ratios were calculated as effect sizes. In preplanned meta-regressions, subgroup analyses, and sensitivity analyses, we examined the robustness of the results and explored reasons for potential heterogeneity., Results: Altogether, 14 double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials (n=491) investigating quetiapine (N=4, n=142), risperidone (N=4, n=132), aripiprazole (N=2, n=79), olanzapine (N=2, n=70), paliperidone (N=1, n=34), and haloperidol (N=1, n=34) were incorporated. Augmentation with antipsychotics was significantly more efficacious than placebo in Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale total reduction (N=14, n=478; Hedges's g=-0.64, 95% CI: -0.87 to -0.41; P=<.01). Aripiprazole (Hedges's g=-1.35), haloperidol (Hedges's g=-0.82), and risperidone (Hedges's g=-0.59) significantly outperformed placebo. Antipsychotics were superior to placebo in treating obsessions, compulsions, and achieving response. There was no between-group difference concerning all-cause discontinuation. The nonsignificant meta-regressions suggest no influence of the antipsychotic dose or baseline symptom severity on the meta-analytic results., Conclusions: According to our findings, antipsychotic augmentation of serotonin reuptake inhibitors can be regarded as an evidence-based measure in treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of CINP.)

Background: Haloperidol is worldwide one of the most frequently used antipsychotic drugs with a very high market share. Previous narrative, unsystematic reviews found no differences in terms of efficacy between the various first-generation ("conventional", "typical") antipsychotic agents. This established the unproven psychopharmacological assumption of a comparable efficacy between the first-generation antipsychotic compounds codified in textbooks and treatment guidelines. Because this assumption contrasts with the clinical impression, a high-quality systematic review appeared highly necessary., Objectives: To compare the efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of haloperidol with other first-generation antipsychotics in schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychosis., Search Methods: In October 2011 and July 2012, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register, which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. To identify further relevant publications, we screened the references of all included studies and contacted the manufacturers of haloperidol for further relevant trials and missing information on identified studies. Furthermore, we contacted the corresponding authors of all included trials for missing data., Selection Criteria: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared oral haloperidol with another oral first-generation antipsychotic drug (with the exception of the low-potency antipsychotics chlorpromazine, chlorprothixene, levopromazine, mesoridazine, perazine, prochlorpromazine, and thioridazine) in schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychosis. Clinically important response to treatment was defined as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were global state, mental state, behaviour, overall acceptability (measured by the number of participants leaving the study early due to any reason), overall efficacy (attrition due to inefficacy of treatment), overall tolerability (attrition due to adverse events), and specific adverse effects., Data Collection and Analysis: At least two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using The Cochrane Collaboration`s 'Risk of bias' tool.We analysed dichotomous outcomes with risk ratios (RR) and continuous outcomes with mean differences (MD), both with the associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). All analyses were based on a random-effects model and we preferably used data on an intention-to-treat basis where possible., Main Results: The systematic review currently includes 63 randomised trials with 3675 participants. Bromperidol (n = 9), loxapine (n = 7), and trifluoperazine (n = 6) were the most frequently administered antipsychotics comparator to haloperidol. The included studies were published between 1962 and 1993, were characterised by small sample sizes (mean: 58 participants, range from 18 to 206) and the predefined outcomes were often incompletely reported. All results for the main outcomes were based on very low or low quality data. In many trials the mechanism of randomisation, allocation, and blinding was frequently not reported. In short-term studies (up to 12 weeks), there was no clear evidence of a difference between haloperidol and the pooled group of the other first-generation antipsychotic agents in terms of the primary outcome "clinically important response to treatment" (40 RCTs, n = 2132, RR 0.93 CI 0.87 to 1.00). In the medium-term trials, haloperidol may be less effective than the other first-generation antipsychotic group but this evidence is based on only one trial (1 RCT, n = 80, RR 0.51 CI 0.37 to 0.69).Based on limited evidence, haloperidol alleviated more positive symptoms of schizophrenia than the other antipsychotic drugs. There were no statistically significant between-group differences in global state, other mental state outcomes, behaviour, leaving the study early due to any reason, due to inefficacy, as well as due to adverse effects. The only statistically significant difference in specific side effects was that haloperidol produced less akathisia in the medium term., Authors' Conclusions: The findings of the meta-analytic calculations support the statements of previous narrative, unsystematic reviews suggesting comparable efficacy of first-generation antipsychotics. In efficacy-related outcomes, there was no clear evidence of a difference between the prototypal drug haloperidol and other, mainly high-potency first-generation antipsychotics. Additionally, we demonstrated that haloperidol is characterised by a similar risk profile compared to the other first-generation antipsychotic compounds. The only statistically significant difference in specific side effects was that haloperidol produced less akathisia in the medium term. The results were limited by the low methodological quality in many of the included original studies. Data for the main results were low or very low quality. Therefore, future clinical trials with high methodological quality are required.