Systematic review and meta-analysis of augmentation and combination treatments for early-stage treatment-resistant depression.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a highly burdensome health condition, for which there are numerous accepted pharmacological and psychological interventions. Adjunctive treatment (augmentation/combination) is recommended for the ~50% of MDD patients who do not adequately respond to first-line treatment. We aimed to evaluate the current evidence for concomitant approaches for people with early-stage treatment-resistant depression (TRD; defined below). METHODS: We systematically searched Medline and Institute for Scientific Information Web of Science to identify randomised controlled trials of adjunctive treatment of ⩾10 adults with MDD who had not responded to ⩾1 adequate antidepressant. The cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool was used to assess study quality. Pre-post treatment meta-analyses were performed, allowing for comparison across heterogeneous study designs independent of comparator interventions. RESULTS: In total, 115 trials investigating 48 treatments were synthesised. The mean intervention duration was 9 weeks (range 5 days to 18 months) with most studies assessed to have low (n = 57) or moderate (n = 51) RoB. The highest effect sizes (ESs) were from cognitive behavioural therapy (ES = 1.58, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.09-2.07), (es)ketamine (ES = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.23-1.73) and risperidone (ES = 1.42, 95% CI: 1.29-1.61). Only aripiprazole and lithium were examined in ⩾10 studies. Pill placebo (ES = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.81-0.98) had a not inconsiderable ES, and only six treatments' 95% CIs did not overlap with pill placebo's (aripiprazole, (es)ketamine, mirtazapine, olanzapine, quetiapine and risperidone). We report marked heterogeneity between studies for almost all analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support cautious optimism for several augmentation strategies; although considering the high prevalence of TRD, evidence remains inadequate for each treatment option.

Impulsivity profiles in pathological slot machine gamblers.

INTRODUCTION: In gambling disorder (GD), impulsivity has been related with severity, treatment outcome and a greater dropout rate. The aim of the study is to obtain an empirical classification of GD patients based on their impulsivity and compare the resulting groups in terms of sociodemographic, clinical and gambling behavior variables. METHODS: 126 patients with slot machine GD attending the Pathological Gambling Unit between 2013 and 2016 were included. The UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale was used to assess impulsivity, and the severity of past-year gambling behavior was established with the Screen for Gambling problems questionnaire (NODS). Depression and anxiety symptoms and executive function were also assessed. A two-step cluster analysis was carried out to determine impulsivity profiles. RESULTS: According to the UPPS-P data, two clusters were generated. Cluster 1 showed the highest scores on all the UPPS-P subscales, whereas patients from cluster 2 exhibited only high scores on two UPPS-P subscales: Negative Urgency and Lack of premeditation. Additionally, patients on cluster 1 were younger and showed significantly higher scores on the Beck Depression Inventory and on the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory questionnaires, worse emotional regulation and executive functioning, and reported more psychiatric comorbidity compared to patients in cluster 2. With regard to gambling behavior, cluster 1 patients had significantly higher NODS scores and a higher percentage presented active gambling behavior at treatment start than in cluster 2. CONCLUSIONS: We found two impulsivity subtypes of slot machine gamblers. Patients with high impulsivity showed more severe gambling behavior, more clinical psychopathology and worse emotional regulation and executive functioning than those with lower levels of impulsivity. These two different clinical profiles may require different therapeutic approaches.