In a previous study, of 41 depressed patients who had not responded to fluoxetine 20 mg/day, 53% were treated with high-dose fluoxetine (40-60 mg/ day) and responded (i.e., their 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HAM-D-17] score was <7) versus 29% and 25% of patients treated with fluoxetine plus lithium (300-600 mg/day) or fluoxetine plus desipramine (25-50 mg/day), respectively. We wanted to assess whether these findings could be replicated in a larger sample of depressed outpatients. We identified 101 outpatients with major depressive disorder (52 men and 49 women; mean age, 41.6 + 10.6 years) who were either partial responders (n = 49) or nonresponders (n = 52) to 8 weeks of treatment with fluoxetine 20 mg/ day. These patients were randomized to 4 weeks of double-blind treatment with high-dose fluoxetine (40-60 mg/day), fluoxetine plus lithium (300-600 mg/day), or fluoxetine plus desipramine (25-50 mg/day). In the overall group of patients (N = 101), there was no significant difference in response rates across the three treatment groups (high-dose fluoxetine, 42.4%; fluoxetine plus desipramine, 29.4%; fluoxetine plus lithium, 23.5%). Dropout rates were also comparable, ranging from 9.1% (high-dose fluoxetine) to 14.7% (fluoxetine plus desipramine and fluoxetine plus lithium). There were also no significant differences in response rates across the three treatment groups among partial responders (high-dose fluoxetine, 50.0%; fluoxetine plus desipramine, 33.3%; fluoxetine plus lithium, 33.3%) and nonresponders (high-dose fluoxetine, 35.3%; fluoxetine plus desipramine, 26.3%; fluoxetine plus lithium, 12.5%). At the end of the study, the mean lithium level was 0.37 + 0.15 mEq/L (n = 27; range, 0.1-0.8 mEq/L) among lithium-treated patients, and the mean desipramine level was 104.7 + 58.8 ng/mL (n = 22; range, 25-257 ng/mL). There were no significant relationships between lithium or desipramine blood levels and degree of improvement (as measured by the change in HAM-D-17 score). We found no significant differences in efficacy among these three treatment strategies among patients who had failed to respond adequately to 8 weeks of treatment with fluoxetine 20 mg/day, although the high-fluoxetine group was associated with nonsignificantly higher response rates in both partial responders and nonresponders.
Results confirm the overlap of SP and APD in a depressed population and the high prevalence of these disorders in MDD. They suggest that depressed individuals with both SP and APD but not SP alone are at particularly high risk for atypical depression and for social dysfunction in excess of that caused by a current major depression.
Lithium augmentation, the most studied augmentation strategy for depression, has not been evaluated in patients with a history of non-response to multiple antidepressants. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of lithium augmentation for patients with a history of treatment resistant depression who also failed a prospective trial of nortriptyline. We enrolled 92 subjects with treatment resistant depression. Treatment resistance was defined by at least one, but no more than five, adequate trials of antidepressants during the current episode. Subjects were treated with nortriptyline (NT) for 6 weeks. Those subjects who tolerated NT for 6 weeks and whose depression did not respond (n=35) were randomized to receive either lithium (n=18) or placebo (N=17) augmentation of nortriptyline for an additional 6 weeks. Response was defined as an equal to or greater than 50% decrease in HAM-D-17 scores. After 6 weeks of double-blind augmentation, 12.5 % of subjects responded to lithium and 20.0% to placebo. Our results revealed no significant difference between lithium and placebo augmentation. While lithium augmentation seems to be useful in depression refractory to a single medication in some studies, our data suggest limited usefulness of this option for patients refractory to multiple treatments. More definitive data await the outcome of the NIMH Sequential Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.