Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) 2016 Clinical Guidelines for the Management of Adults with Major Depressive Disorder: Section 3. Pharmacological Treatments.

BACKGROUND: The Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) conducted a revision of the 2009 guidelines by updating the evidence and recommendations. The scope of the 2016 guidelines remains the management of major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults, with a target audience of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals. METHODS: Using the question-answer format, we conducted a systematic literature search focusing on systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Evidence was graded using CANMAT-defined criteria for level of evidence. Recommendations for lines of treatment were based on the quality of evidence and clinical expert consensus. "Pharmacological Treatments" is the third of six sections of the 2016 guidelines. With little new information on older medications, treatment recommendations focus on second-generation antidepressants. RESULTS: Evidence-informed responses are given for 21 questions under 4 broad categories: 1) principles of pharmacological management, including individualized assessment of patient and medication factors for antidepressant selection, regular and frequent monitoring, and assessing clinical and functional outcomes with measurement-based care; 2) comparative aspects of antidepressant medications based on efficacy, tolerability, and safety, including summaries of newly approved drugs since 2009; 3) practical approaches to pharmacological management, including drug-drug interactions and maintenance recommendations; and 4) managing inadequate response and treatment resistance, with a focus on switching antidepressants, applying adjunctive treatments, and new and emerging agents. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-based pharmacological treatments are available for first-line treatment of MDD and for management of inadequate response. However, given the limitations of the evidence base, pharmacological management of MDD still depends on tailoring treatments to the patient.

Quetiapine augmentation of treatment-resistant depression: a comparison with lithium.

OBJECTIVE: The prevalence of and morbidity associated with treatment-resistant depression has motivated the exploration of treatment alternatives. In this study, quetiapine was compared with lithium in the augmentation of treatment-resistant depression. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Open-label, comparative study in 20 patients with major depression who had failed to respond after 4 weeks of treatment with an antidepressant at the maximal recommended dose. Patients were randomised to either lithium or quetiapine in addition to the maximally dosed antidepressant and any other concurrent medications. Lithium was initiated at 600 mg/day; quetiapine was titrated to 400 mg by day 7. RESULTS: Depression, measured by the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), significantly improved from baseline in both quetiapine (F(1,90) = 25.11, p < 0.0001) and lithium (F(1,90) = 34.54, p < 0.0001). The difference in improvement between the two groups began at day 14 and was seen at all timepoints thereafter (p < 0.05), with the quetiapine group showing greater improvement than the lithium group. In the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) analysis, the difference between the quetiapine and lithium group was significant from day 28 onwards (p < 0.05), with subjects improving more in the quetiapine group than the lithium group. The treatment by week interaction showed a significant difference overall between the two groups (p < 0.0001). The severity of psychomotor retardation showed a significant decrease in the Widlocher Psychomotor Retardation Scale scores in the quetiapine (p < 0.0001) and lithium (p < 0.0001) groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, quetiapine was an effective augmenting agent in treatment-resistant depression.