ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Atypical antipsychotics may have efficacy as augmentation therapy in treatment resistant depression (TRD) but evidence is limited. METHODS: An open label study of quetiapine augmentation in 24 patients (mean age: 46.3 years) with a DSM-IV major depressive episode resistant to at least 2 trials of antidepressant medication, and currently taking a monoamine reuptake inhibitor. An 8-week treatment phase was followed by an 18-week extension in patients who showed clinical benefit. RESULTS: Eighteen patients (75%) completed the 8-week treatment phase with seven patients (29%) being responders on the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale and 13 (54%) on the CGI-I. Fewer patients responded if they had previously received olanzapine in the current episode but this was not statistically significant (0% v 37%, p=0.27). Of the eleven patients entering the extension phase, 3 patients (27%) experienced a significant worsening of mood. The most common adverse events were sedation (54%), dry mouth (38%) and dizziness (29%). Significant weight gain was found in 40% of patients treated for 26 weeks. Average quetiapine doses were 245 mg at 8 weeks and 346 mg at 26 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Quetiapine may be a helpful adjunctive agent for some patients with TRD but placebo-controlled trials are needed to establish its place in management. LIMITATIONS: The trial was open-label and the numbers were small.
Subject(s)
Antipsychotic Agents/adverse effects , Depressive Disorder, Major/drug therapy , Dibenzothiazepines/adverse effects , Drug Resistance , Adult , Antipsychotic Agents/therapeutic use , Depressive Disorder, Major/diagnosis , Dibenzothiazepines/therapeutic use , Dizziness/chemically induced , Drug Administration Schedule , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pilot Projects , Psychiatric Status Rating Scales/statistics & numerical data , Quetiapine Fumarate , Severity of Illness Index , Treatment Outcome , Weight Gain/drug effectsABSTRACT
Patients frequently overestimate the benefit of standard breast cancer adjuvant therapy. This is due in part to vague doctor-patient communication. To examine how the doctor's description and patient's expectations of the benefit of standard therapy affect clinical trial participation, we randomized 282 female cancer patients to one of two versions of a clinical vignette describing a choice between standard cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (5FU) (CMF) and a randomized trial comparing CMF with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and 5FU (CAF). The vignettes differed only on whether results with CMF were described verbally or numerically in terms of disease-free survival (DFS). After selecting CMF or the trial, patients estimated their 10-year DFS with CMF. Patients were randomized 3:1 to the verbal vignette. The trial was selected by 110 of 210 (52.4%) verbal vignette patients versus 25 of 72 (34.7%) numeric vignette patients (P = .01). Estimates of 10-year DFS with CMF varied considerably; many were inaccurate. When patients in the verbal vignette group were divided into thirds according to DFS estimate, 22 of 64 (34.4%) in the top third selected the trial versus 38 of 64 (59.4%) and 38 of 65 (58.5%) in the middle and bottom third, respectively (P = .005). Younger age, college education, and previous participation in a trial also predicted trial selection. Multivariate logistic regression suggested that the benefit expected from CMF was more important than how benefit was described in treatment selection. Assuring realistic patient expectations of standard adjuvant therapy benefit is likely to be important during discussion of clinical trials.
