Adverse effects may include nausea, diarrhea and mild bradycardia. One study found that when patients with TRD were given pindolol to potentiate their antidepressants, they exhibited increased irritability (Blier and Bergeron, 1998).Bupropion. Bodkin et al. (1997) evaluated the efficacy of combining bupropion (Wellbutrin) and SSRIs by retrospective analysis in a group of 27 subjects who were only partially responsive to adequate doses and duration of either an SSRI or bupropion as monotherapy.
With combination therapy, 70% (n=19) showed significant clinical response compared to either agent alone. Mean daily doses were bupropion 243 mg (range=100 mg to 450 mg) and 31 mg of an SSRI (range=7 mg to 60 mg of fluoxetine(Drug information on fluoxetine) or its equivalent).
Notable adverse effects of combined treatment were sexual dysfunction, insomnia, reduced energy level and tremor. The incidence of these adverse effects was generally similar to that seen with monotherapy of either treatment. Panic attacks have also been reported with the combination of bupropion and SSRIs (Bodkin et al., 1997; Young, 1996).Venlafaxine. Theoretically, augmentation with venlafaxine (Effexor) in a patient who had previously been taking an SSRI or a tricyclic antidepressant would be beneficial due to its additional mechanism of action. Venlafaxine acts as a reuptake inhibitor of both serotonin and norepinephrine(Drug information on norepinephrine), thus adding adrenergic activity to an SSRI's serotonergic effect.
Gmez Gmez and Teixid Perramn (2000) added venlafaxine to either clomipramine(Drug information on clomipramine) (Anafranil) or imipramine(Drug information on imipramine) (Tofranil) in depressed patients who had shown only partial response to maximal doses of one of those TCAs. They found a sustained positive response to venlafaxine augmentation in nine patients (82% of the sample), with seven patients (64% of the sample) reaching full remission and sustaining it over a two-year period. No significant changes in blood pressure, heart rate, electrocardiogram or blood tricyclic levels were found.
Currently there are only anecdotal reports of venlafaxine 75 mg/day to 300 mg/day as a successful augmentation strategy for SSRI nonresponders (Fava, 2001). The possibility of hypertension (more likely at doses >225 mg/day) necessitates blood pressure monitoring.Mirtazapine. Carpenter et al. (1999) reported positive results with mirtazapine(Drug information on mirtazapine) (Remeron) 15 mg/day to 30 mg/day augmentation of various SSRIs, venlafaxine or desipramine (Norpramin). At the end of four weeks of open-label augmentation, 55% (n=11) of previously refractory patients became responders to treatment. In a double-blind, controlled study, researchers found a significantly higher response rate to the combination of paroxetine(Drug information on paroxetine) and mirtazapine than monotherapy with either drug (Debonnel et al., 2000, as cited in Fava, 2001).
Like venlafaxine, mirtazapine has a dual mechanism of increasing serotonergic and noradrenergic activity. Mirtazapine also blocks postsynaptic 5-HT2 and 5-HT3 receptors, further contributing to selective 5-HT1A receptor activity (Stimmel et al., 1997).
Possible adverse effects of mirtazapine include weight gain and sedation (could have deleterious effects on patient compliance), agitation, and gastrointestinal distress.Atypical antipsychotics. Ostroff and Nelson (1999) reported a case series of eight patients with major depression unresponsive to fluoxetine or paroxetine. Risperidone(Drug information on risperidone) (Risperdal) 0.5 mg/day to 1.0 mg/day was added to the SSRI therapy. Based upon HAM-D scores, all eight patients had remission of depressive symptoms within the first week of risperidone therapy. One concern regarding adding risperidone to paroxetine therapy is the cytochrome P450 2D6 isoenzyme-inhibition effect of paroxetine on risperidone that results in increased likelihood of adverse effects, including extrapyramidal side effects. No controlled trials have yet been reported with risperidone. In a case report, the addition of risperidone to the MAOI tranylcypromine (Parnate) also resulted in improvement (Stoll and Haura, 2000).
Shelton et al. (2001) conducted a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial in 28 patients with fluoxetine and olanzapine(Drug information on olanzapine) (Zyprexa). Concomitant use of olanzapine 5 mg/day to 20 mg/day in addition to fluoxetine doses of up to 60 mg/day resulted in 60% response rates in patients previously unresponsive to treatment with fluoxetine alone. Clinical response to the combination therapy was observed within the first week of the eight-week study. Possible side effects include somnolence, increased appetite, weight gain, asthenia, headache, dry mouth and nervousness.
It is hypothesized that the coadministration of olanzapine with fluoxetine results in a pharmacodynamic synergy, in which norepinephrine and serotonin levels increase to much higher levels in the prefrontal cortex than when either is administered alone.Other pharmacological approaches. Many other augmentation and combination strategies involving antidepressants and other agents are being studied. Such strategies include anticonvulsants such as carbamazepine (Tegretol) and divalproex sodium(Drug information on divalproex sodium) (Depakote); dopaminergic drugs such as pergolide(Drug information on pergolide) (Permax) and amantadine(Drug information on amantadine) (Symmetrel); psychostimulants such as methylphenidate(Drug information on methylphenidate) (Ritalin, Concerta, Methylin, Metadate), dextroamphetamine (Dexedrine, Adderall) or pemoline(Drug information on pemoline) (Cylert); a2-antagonists such as yohimbine (Yocon, Yohimex) and nefazodone(Drug information on nefazodone) (Serzone) (Charney et al., 1986; Fava, 2001; Nelson, 2000; Nierenberg et al., 1998; Rybakowski et al., 1999).
The studies and anecdotal reports regarding these agents show inconclusive or contradictory results. Additionally, augmentation with some of these options proved to predispose to adverse effects and the potential for serotonin syndrome when serotonergic agents were used to augment SSRIs (Fava, 2001).Options for Switching Switch to an MAOI. Monoamine oxidase inhibitors remain a very effective strategy for refractory depression. McGrath et al. (1993) found a statistically significant difference in the response rates between groups in a double-blind, crossover trial of imipramine and phenelzine(Drug information on phenelzine) (Nardil), where phenelzine proved to be more effective for patients who had been unresponsive to imipramine.
Despite very good efficacy, MAOIs are rarely used (Fava, 2000) because of strict dietary restrictions, serious drug-drug interactions (e.g., fluoxetine or imipramine switch to tranylcypromine) and the risk of hypertensive crisis.Switch to bupropion. Until the more recent data regarding venlafaxine and mirtazapine became available, a common switching strategy was to move from an SSRI to bupropion in refractory depression, despite a paucity of published data. Fava (2000) noted that clinicians switched patients to bupropion in search for a drug with an improved adverse-effect profile rather than to enhance efficacy. Switching from an SSRI to bupropion is often chosen when the patient has experienced sexual dysfunction and a less than optimal response (Marangell, 2001). Switch to venlafaxine. De Montigny et al. (1999) reported a 58% response rate (e50% improvement from baseline on the 21-item HAM-D) and a 28% remission rate (e75% improvement) in 152 patients with TRD. Patients had been switched to venlafaxine therapy after failure to reach an adequate response in at least an eight-week trial on another antidepressant. It was suggested that because venlafaxine has more serotonergic than noradrenergic activity, venlafaxine might be expected to be more beneficial in nonresponders to TCAs and MAOIs than SSRI nonresponders. The most common adverse events reported with venlafaxine were headache, insomnia, nausea, constipation, diaphoresis and xerostomia. Switch to mirtazapine. A study by Fava et al. (2001) showed that SSRI nonresponders exhibited a 48% response rate and SSRI-intolerant patients exhibited a 53% response rate to mirtazapine. Response rates did not differ significantly between patients who were switched immediately from the SSRI to mirtazapine and those who were first given a four-day SSRI-washout period. In this study, mirtazapine also improved sexual functioning in several patients who had had SSRI-induced dysfunction. The adverse events most commonly reported by the mirtazapine-treated patients were somnolence, increased appetite, headache, weight gain, dizziness and nervousness. To Augment or Switch?
The decision to augment or switch drug therapy should be based primarily on the patient's degree of clinical response as well as the presence and severity of adverse effects. Augmentation may be considered for the patient who has been on an adequate dose and duration of an antidepressant and has had good tolerability, but has shown only partial response. Augmenting allows patients to continue to reap whatever benefits they have from their original drugs but with the additive or synergistic benefits of the augmentor (Nelson, 2000).
In contrast, switching therapy should be considered for patients who have shown inadequate response to their current therapy or for those who experience intolerable adverse effects (Fava, 2000). Switching also offers simplicity of drug therapy compared to use of multiple drugs with augmentation strategies.
Posternak and Zimmerman (2001) compared the strategies of switching and augmentation in patients with TRD. They concluded that switching antidepressants was somewhat less effective than augmentation, although the difference was not statistically significant.
Given the very limited number of treatment option studies, the choice of augmentor or switch agent must be based upon several considerations. These include history of past drug response, adverse-effect profile differences, concomitant medical disorders and concurrent drug therapy.Nonpharmacological Options
Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a highly effective treatment for psychotic depression and severe refractory depression. Unfortunately, there continues to be a stigma associated with ECT despite its safety under medically monitored conditions, its efficacy and its more rapid onset of effect (Olfson et al., 1998). The Texas Medication Algorithm Project consensus panel recommends ECT after three ineffective treatments for major depressive disorder without psychotic features (Crismon et al., 1999). Generally, ECT is a very safe treatment. The chief side effects are transient confusion and memory impairment (APA, 2000).
Psychotherapy is a treatment option that may be used either alone or in combination with pharmacotherapy for enhanced patient response. Types of psychotherapy include cognitive-behavioral therapy, interpersonal therapy and behavior therapy.
Light therapy with a 10,000 lux intensity light box for 30 minutes per day directly upon the patient's face has been studied for first-line therapy in subsyndromal winter "blues," as well as for adjunctive therapy in chronic major depressive disorder or dysthymia with seasonal exacerbations (APA, 2000). Side effects can include headache, eye strain, irritability, insomnia and occasionally hypomania.
Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), a treatment option for treatment-resistant seizure disorder, was recently evaluated in TRD (Rush et al., 2000). Escalating amounts of output current were administered to patients' left vagus nerves via an implantable and multiprogrammable pulse generator for 10 weeks. Approximately 40% of patients experienced a positive response, and 17% had a full remission of symptoms. An open, naturalistic follow-up study (Marangell et al., 2002) was conducted to determine whether the initial promising results of the acute-phase study would be sustained for an additional nine months. Longer-term VNS treatment was associated with sustained symptomatic benefit and sustained or enhanced functional status.
In an open pilot study of VNS in 60 patients with TRD, Sackeim et al. (2001) found the response rate ranged from 30.5% to 37.3%, depending on the rating scale used. The most common side effect was voice alteration or hoarseness. This is an interesting alternative strategy for TRD that requires further study.Conclusion
For major depression, the new standard of practice requires treatment that leads to remission of symptoms and a return of occupational and social functioning. Most nonresponse is explained by inadequate treatment, treatment nonadherence, comorbid medical or psychiatric disorders, or failure of an individual drug or treatment method. Strategies for these patients involve identification of the causative factor and correction of it whenever possible.
For the remaining patients with TRD, there are many options including multiple pharmacological mechanisms, VNS, psychotherapy and ECT. Most patients with major depression have the potential to achieve full remission of symptoms.
Psychiatric Times - Category 1 Credit
To earn Category 1 credit, read the article, "Options for Treatment-Resistant Depression" Complete the online application for credit, including payment information, and earn one and one-half CME credits instantly. A $15 charge will be applied to your credit card. If you cannot access our secure server, please use the alternative application for credit, which must be mailed or faxed to CME LLC You must keep your own records of this activity. Copy this information and include it in your continuing education file for reporting purposes.
. CME LLC invites physicians to take the posttest for your personal enrichment.
CME LLC is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. CME LLC designates this educational activity for a maximum of 1.5 category 1 credits toward the AMA Physician's Recognition Award. Each physician should claim only those credits that he/she actually spent in the educational activity.
The American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC) accepts AMA/PRA category 1 credit toward recertification requirements. CME LLC is approved by the California Board of Registered Nursing, Provider No. CEP12748 and designates this educational activity for 1.5 contact hours for nurses.