The sociodemographic and clinical profile of patients with major depressive disorder receiving SSRIs as first-line antidepressant treatment in European countries.

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.

The Choice of Either Quetiapine or Aripiprazole as Augmentation Treatment in a European Naturalistic Sample of Patients With Major Depressive Disorder.

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.

Combining psychopharmacotherapy and psychotherapy is not associated with better treatment outcome in major depressive disorder - evidence from the European Group for the Study of Resistant Depression.

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.