No abstract

Background Pharmacological augmentation is a recommended strategy for patients with treatment-resistant depression. A range of guidelines provide advice on treatment selection, prescription, monitoring and discontinuation, but variation in the content and quality of guidelines may limit the provision of objective, evidence-based care. This is of importance given the side effect burden and poorer long-term outcomes associated with polypharmacy and treatment-resistant depression. This review provides a definitive overview of pharmacological augmentation recommendations by assessing the quality of guidelines for depression and comparing the recommendations made. Methods A systematic literature search identified current treatment guidelines for depression published in English. Guidelines were quality assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. Data relating to the prescription of pharmacological augmenters were extracted from those developed with sufficient rigor, and the included recommendations compared. Results Total of 1696 records were identified, 19 guidelines were assessed for quality, and 10 were included. Guidelines differed in their quality, the stage at which augmentation was recommended, the agents included, and the evidence base cited. Lithium and atypical antipsychotics were recommended by all 10, though the specific advice was not consistent. Of the 15 augmenters identified, no others were universally recommended. Conclusions This review provides a comprehensive overview of current pharmacological augmentation recommendations for major depression and will support clinicians in selecting appropriate treatment guidance. Although some variation can be accounted for by date of guideline publication, and limited evidence from clinical trials, there is a clear need for greater consistency across guidelines to ensure patients receive consistent evidence-based care.

An LC-MS/MS method for the identification and quantification of antidepressants and antipsychotics was developed on dried blood spots (DBSs). Moreover, analyte stability on DBSs within a 3-month period was monitored. Aliquots of 85 µL of blood from autopsy cases were pipetted onto DBS cards, which were dried and stored at room temperature. DBSs were analyzed in triplicate immediately, within the following 3 weeks, and after 3 months. For each analysis, a whole blood stain was extracted in phosphate buffer and purified using Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) cartridges in order to avoid matrix effects and injected in the LC-MS/MS system. Thirty-nine molecules were screened. Limits of detection (LODs) ranged between 0.1 and 3.2 ng/mL (g) and 0.1 and 5.2 ng/mL (g) for antidepressants and antipsychotics, respectively. Limits of quantification (LOQs) varied from 5 to 10.0 ng/mL for both. Sixteen cases among the 60 analyzed resulted positive for 17 different analytes; for 14 of these the method was fully validated. A general good agreement between the concentrations on DBSs and those measured in conventional blood samples (collected concurrently and stored at −20 °C) was observed. The degradation/enhancement percentage for most of the substances was lower than 20% within the 3-month period. Our results, obtained from real post-mortem cases, suggest that DBSs can be used for routine sample storage.

Work by Flavell, Beach, and Chinsky indicated a change in the spontaneous production of overt verbalization behaviors when comparing young children (age 5) with older children (age 10). Despite the critical role that this evidence of a change in verbalization behaviors plays in modern theories of cognitive development and working memory, there has been only one other published near replication of this work. In this Registered Replication Report, we relied on researchers from 17 labs who contributed their results to a larger and more comprehensive sample of children. We assessed memory performance and the presence or absence of verbalization behaviors of young children at different ages and determined that the original pattern of findings was largely upheld: Older children were more likely to verbalize, and their memory spans improved. We confirmed that 5- and 6-year-old children who verbalized recalled more than children who did not verbalize. However, unlike Flavell et al., substantial proportions of our 5- and 6-year-old samples overtly verbalized at least sometimes during the picture memory task. In addition, continuous increase in overt verbalization from 7 to 10 years old was not consistently evident in our samples. These robust findings should be weighed when considering theories of cognitive development, particularly theories concerning when verbal rehearsal emerges and relations between speech and memory.