Dose Increase Versus Unchanged Continuation of Antidepressants After Initial Antidepressant Treatment Failure in Patients With Major Depressive Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Double-Blind Trials
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Double-Blind Trials
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of dose increase compared to dose continuation of the initially prescribed antidepressant in antidepressant treatment failure (ATF).
Data Sources: We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO using generic terms for depression, dose increase, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), without date or language restrictions.
Study Selection: Of 1,780 studies screened, 9 studies reporting on 1,273 patients were included for meta-analysis (PROSPERO Registration: CRD42017058389). Studies met the following predetermined inclusion criteria: randomized controlled trial, patients diagnosed with unipolar depression according to a standardized diagnostic instrument, ATF after a standard antidepressant trial (duration of ≥ 3 weeks at a standard dose), dose increase regimen, and control group of dose continuation.
Data Extraction: Two authors extracted data independently according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. Analyses are based on random effects models.
Results: All studies reported on selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs); 1 study also reported on maprotiline. Meta-analyses resulted in a statistically nonsignificant summary effect size of 0.053 standardized mean difference (95% CI, −0.143 to 0.248) in favor of antidepressant dose increase. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses and secondary outcome analyses resulted in similar effect estimates and supported the robustness of the results.
Conclusions: With clinically and statistically nonsignificant effect estimates, there is evidence from RCTs against increasing the dose of SSRIs (with the possible exception of citalopram) in adult patients with major depression and ATF. Dose increase with other antidepressants (eg, tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, monoamine oxidase inhibitors) and in other patient groups (minor depression, children and adolescents) or after long periods of first-line antidepressant therapy (ie, 8 weeks) have not been or not been sufficiently studied and, at this time, cannot be recommended in clinical practice.
J Clin Psychiatry 2018;79(3):17r11693
To cite: Rink L, Braun C, Bschor T, et al. Dose increase versus unchanged continuation of antidepressants after initial antidepressant treatment failure in patients with major depressive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind trials. J Clin Psychiatry. 2018;79(3):17r11693.
To share: https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.17r11693
© Copyright 2018 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.
aDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Cologne Medical School, Cologne, Germany
bDepartment of Psychiatry, Schlosspark-Hospital, Berlin, Germany
cTechnical University of Dresden Medical School, Dresden, Germany
dCharité University Medicine, Clinic for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, St Hedwig-Hospital, Berlin, Germany
eInstitute of Medical Statistics, Informatics, and Epidemiology, University of Cologne Medical School, Cologne, Germany
‘ ¡Shared first authorship.
*Corresponding author: Christopher Baethge, MD, Abteilung für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Universit×¤t zu Köln, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937 Köln, Germany .
Failure after standard antidepressant treatment (antidepressant treatment failure [ATF]) remains relatively common in clinical practice. For example, rates of nonresponse have repeatedly been shown to reach 30% to 40%.1-4 As a result, clinicians need evidence-based recommendations for treatment alternatives once a standard trial with an antidepressant has failed.5,6 Current guidelines recommend different treatment options, such as antidepressant switch, augmentation with a second-generation antipsychotic or lithium, combination of antidepressants, and dose increase of the initially prescribed antidepressant.7-13 In recent surveys, increasing the dose has been shown to be among the most popular strategies in ATF in everyday clinical routine: results varied, but with 11%,14 27%,15 and 45%16 preference among surveyed clinicians, dose increase is clearly a prevalent strategy.17
So far, however, results of randomized controlled trials of dose increase strategies in patients with ATF varied considerably or were inconclusive. For example, Licht and Qvitzau18 found higher response rates in nonresponders when 100 mg sertraline per day was continued, relative to increasing the dose to 200 mg. On the other hand, Schweizer et al published statistically nonsignificant findings but recommended dose increase because their results trended toward dose increase.19 In addition, some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) yielded inconclusive results because they were underpowered.20-22 To our knowledge, the latest systematic literature review on the topic dates from 2006,23 and, so far, no meta-analysis on the topic has been published.
Consequently, we carried out a systematic literature review and meta-analysis on dose increase of antidepressants as a treatment strategy for ATF.
This is a systematic literature review and meta-analysis registered on PROSPERO (PROSPERO record registration no: CRD42017058389).
Literature Search and Data Extraction
We followed the methods described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 184.108.40.206 In our systematic search, we used generic terms for unipolar depression, dose increase, and randomized controlled trials (for details of the search algorithm, please refer to Supplementary Material), with no language and date restrictions applied and without excluding gray literature. We searched the CENTRAL database, and in order to avoid missing studies due to incomplete coverage in CENTRAL, we completed our results with systematic searches in PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO for studies published after December 31, 2011 (last search update: February 20, 2017). We also hand-searched the references of 17 review articles on the topic of second-line treatment strategies and all references of studies selected for our analysis. Further, based on Web of Knowledge data, we screened all papers that cited the studies selected (forward search).
Titles and abstracts of all search results have been screened by 2 authors independently (L.R., C. Braun). All potentially eligible studies have been evaluated as full text. Disagreements were resolved by discussion among the authors (L.R., C. Braun, C. Baethge).
Inclusion criteria. Articles were included if they met all of the following criteria: (1) RCT with randomization of patients with ATF to either a dose increase regimen or unchanged continuation, (2) patients diagnosed with unipolar depression, and (3) standardized diagnosis of ATF. The term ATF refers to failure in a standardized antidepressant treatment trial.
As a consequence, we excluded studies investigating second-step strategies after antidepressant treatments below standard doses or lasting less than 3 weeks. ATF invariably covers nonremission of a depressive episode, but some authors defined ATF as nonresponse (eg, < 50% reduction in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale). We adopted authors’ definition of ATF. Studies comparing different doses from the start of pharmacologic treatment were also excluded.
Exclusion criterion. Articles were excluded if they included interventions based on herbal medicine, nutritional supplements, or any non-antidepressant agent.
- Dose increase after antidepressant treatment failure has been examined in only a few randomized controlled trials, which have largely examined SSRI treatment in adults.
- Currently, dose increase cannot be recommended after antidepressant treatment failure. Other strategies such as antidepressant combination or augmentation with lithium or antipsychotics are preferable.
- More research is needed, particularly on antidepressants other than SSRIs and on longer prerandomization treatment periods.
Data extraction. Data extraction and study ratings were carried out independently by 2 authors (L.R., C. Braun) using a standardized form (Excel, Microsoft; Redmond, Washington). In case of missing data, we contacted trial authors. For one study, unpublished as a journal article,22 we decided to include data from the poster and not from the published abstract. We applied the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook tool for assessing risk of bias to rate all studies selected, and trials were rated according to the following domains: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other sources of bias. Studies were defined to have a low risk of bias if they received a rating of "low" risk of bias in at least 5 of the 6 domains of the Cochrane risk of bias tool (Supplementary eTable 1).
Primary outcome. The primary outcome was efficacy of dose increase compared with continuation of initially prescribed dose of antidepressants, expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD). We adopted efficacy assessments applied by trial authors, such as difference in depression rating scores or difference in change scores at endpoint. Continuous measurements were preferred, but we converted response and remission rates into SMDs if no other data were available (response preferred over remission if both were available). To convert dichotomous measures into SMDs, we calculated odds ratio (OR) using a 2-by-2 frequency table. The OR was then inserted into the following formula:
If available, we used intention-to-treat data and adopted study authors’ method to account for missing data (eg, last observation carried forward).
Secondary outcomes. Secondary outcomes were predefined as follows: Response and remission rates (as defined by trial authors) using ORs, and tolerability expressed as dropout rates due to adverse events and dropout rates due to any reason (ORs).
Subgroup and sensitivity analyses. In subgroup analyses, we restricted calculations of the primary outcome to studies of (1) selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) only, (2) studies including adult patients only, (3) studies including only patients with major depressive disorder, and (4) studies of SSRI and adults and major depression. We also calculated SMD for studies with low risk of bias separately. To avoid undue reliance on single studies, we ran a sensitivity analysis with each study left out one at a time.
Publication bias analysis. Since power was too low for the Egger test, we inspected funnel plots of all analyses for indications of publication bias. We carried out trim-and-fill analyses (Duval and Tweedie’s ) for all prespecified meta-analyses. Orwin’s fail-safe N was calculated based on the assumptions of an effect size of 0.5 SMD in missing studies and a summary effect estimate of 0.3 SMD in favor of dose increase regimens.
Post hoc analysis. A post hoc analysis focused on different definitions of ATF (nonresponse vs nonremission).
We calculated SMDs with 95% CI and ORs with 95% CI using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Versions 2 and 3 (Biostat; Englewood, New Jersey) and Practical Meta-Analysis Effect Size Calculator by David B. Wilson (George Mason University).25 We applied random effects models in all analyses to account for sample and design differences inherent to the group of studies under investigation. Heterogeneity among studies is expressed as I2. If data were available in graphs only, we used Plot Digitizer, version 2.6.8 (SourceForge Project; sourceforge.net), for data extraction. Power was calculated using G*Power 3.1 (http://www.gpower.hhu.de/en.html).
We investigated in a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of randomized trials (design) whether antidepressant dose increase (intervention) is more effective, as measured in standardized mean difference (outcome), than unchanged continuation of an antidepressant (comparison) in patients with depression and antidepressant treatment failure (participants).
The literature search retrieved 2,196 articles, reduced to 1,780 articles after removing duplicates. Of 20 articles inspected at full-text level, 9 studies18-22,26-29 met our predefined inclusion criteria (Figure 1). The studies selected included 1,273 patients (635 women), 628 of whom received dose increase after ATF (Table 1). All trials included were double-blind.
Efficacy and Tolerability
Primary outcome. All studies provided intent-to-treat data for primary outcome calculations. We calculated a statistically nonsignificant SMD of 0.053 (95% CI, −0.143 to 0.248) in favor of dose increase (Table 2, Figure 2A). After studies were removed one by one, SMD varied between −0.002 (−0.185 to 0.182) (excluding Kim et al22) and 0.106 (−0.082 to 0.294) (excluding Licht and Quitzau18).
In a subgroup analysis restricted to adult patients with major depression treated with SSRIs, including 1,121 patients from 8 studies, after exclusion of Heiligenstein et al20 as well as the maprotiline and minor depression subgroups from Benkert et al,26 we found a nonsignificant SMD of 0.079 (−0.118 to 0.276) (Figure 2B). In studies with a low risk of bias (Kornstein et al,28 Licht and Qvitzau,18 Ruhé et al21), the SMD summary estimate was −0.148 (−0.369 to 0.074) (Table 2).
Secondary outcomes. Secondary outcome analyses, namely, response and remission, confirmed the results of the primary outcome analysis, with statistically nonsignificant odds ratios of 1.124 (0.778 to 1.625) for response (all 9 studies included, Table 2) and 1.01 (0.694 to 1.469) for remission (6 studies included18,19,21,22,28,29). There were no statistically significant findings regarding dropouts due to any reason or due to adverse events: Slightly fewer patients dropped out of the dose increase arms (OR = 0.964 [0.584 to 1.590], Table 2), but, numerically, there were more dropouts due to adverse events in dose increase arms than in continuation groups (OR = 1.244 [0.450 to 3.441]), with 5 studies providing data on dropouts due to adverse events.20,21,27-29
Throughout analyses, I2 values ranged between around 50% and 75% but were consistently lower in subgroup analyses (Table 2).
Trim-and-fill analyses. A funnel plot of all 9 studies included in the primary outcome analysis indicated the possibility of publication bias, and a trim-and-fill analysis with 1 study filled to the left of the mean resulted in a reduced effect size (SMD = 0.004 [−0.201 to 0.209]). Trim-and-fill analyses of secondary outcomes, if indicated, yielded similar results (Table 3).
Fail-safe N. In the primary outcome analysis, to achieve a SMD of 0.3, one would need 13 additional studies with an effect size of 0.5 SMD. Calculations of Orwin’s fail-safe N for secondary outcomes resulted in similar findings (Table 3).
Post Hoc Analysis
Summary effects of studies employing nonresponse definitions of ATF18,20,21,27,29 were similar to those of studies that used nonremission definitions19,22,26,28: SMD = 0.018 (−0.277 to 0.314) versus 0.107 (−0.209 to 0.423), respectively (P = .69).
This systematic literature review and meta-analysis yielded 2 main results, as follows. (1) There is no clinically or statistically significant effect of SSRI dose increase after failure in antidepressant pharmacotherapy. (2) Studies on dose increase of antidepressants other than SSRIs (and of citalopram) are needed.
Despite its frequent use in clinical practice, we found no sufficient evidence for the efficacy of antidepressant dose increase after failure of an antidepressant treatment in patients with major depressive disorder. With a standardized mean difference of 0.053, the clinical effect of dose increase is negligible. While heterogeneity of our main analysis was considerable, subgroup and sensitivity analyses strongly supported our main finding: SMDs varied between −0.15 and +0.1 in subgroup analyses, and effects on response and remission were always close to an OR of 1 and never became statistically or clinically significant. As expected, heterogeneity was smaller in subgroup analyses and centered around 50%. Of note, in studies with a low risk of bias, the summary effect of dose increase was negative and the lower confidence interval (−0.37) indicated the possibility of a weak detrimental effect of dose increase in SSRIs. Moreover, our leave-one-out analysis indicated that no study dominated the calculation (SMDs between 0.0 and 0.1). Consideration of possible publication bias resulted in even smaller SMDs. Calculation of fail-safe Ns resulted in numbers of studies that were invariably larger than the number included in this meta-analysis, rendering it unlikely that the effect we saw will be offset by unpublished or overlooked studies. Further, upper confidence limits never crossed 0.3 standardized mean differences—a moderate and common effect size in antidepressant pharmacotherapy,30-32 even in second-step pharmacotherapy.33,34 Finally, the results do not depend on the definition of ATF because analyses based on studies using nonremission as criterion or nonresponse yielded similar results.
At the study level, 2 investigations showed significant effects: Kim et al22 observed that raising the dose of citalopram from 20 mg/d to 30 mg/d led to a sizable improvement in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale scores (SMD = 0.66 [0.1 to 1.2]). So far, however, this study has been published only as a poster. It is also a small study (N = 50), and its primary outcome (remission) did not reach statistical significance. In contrast, in Licht and Qvitzau’s well-powered trial,18 doubling the dose of sertraline led to worse outcomes in comparison to dose continuation (SMD = −0.35 [−0.68; −0.03]). While a recent meta-analysis35 could not support a dose-dependent efficacy of sertraline in general, the results of this trial in nonresponders cannot easily be discounted because it is large (N = 195) and methodologically sound. As a result, it is among the few studies in this field with low risk of bias, even though the time to achieve response after dose increase was very short (2 weeks).
One possible explanation for the lack of efficacy of dose increase in the studies included in this meta-analysis is that increasing the doses of SSRIs has not led to increased serotonin transporter occupancy36: In the only study investigating this hypothesis, Ruhé et al21 found that SERT occupancy was not higher after increasing paroxetine dose from 20 mg to 40 mg.
Dose escalation and continuation arms only slightly, and not statistically significantly, differed in regard to treatment discontinuation due to side effects. Since several adverse effects have been reported to be dose dependent, for example, hypertension,37 QT prolongation,38 sexual dysfunction,39 fracture risk,40 or liver injury,40 the statistical power of the combined studies in this meta-analysis may have been too low. Alternatively, side effects did not occur more often or occurred but were tolerated in this group of severely affected patients. Notably, high doses of SSRIs have recently been linked to the risk of withdrawal symptoms once doses are decreased or discontinued.41
Taken together, the summary estimates for increasing the dose in antidepressant pharmacotherapy after an initial trial have failed to indicate negligible effects. From the confidence intervals, however, we cannot rule out a weak positive or a very weak negative effect of dose increase.
Our findings pertain mainly to SSRIs (with the possible exception of citalopram) and to adult patients with major depression. Other dose increase regimens, for example, in tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs), or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), have not been investigated in depressed patients with ATF, and, thus, a clinically meaningful effect cannot be ruled out for those substances. One study,26 however, showed that increasing the dose of the tetracyclic compound maprotiline to 150 mg/d was inferior to continuing on maprotiline 100 mg. The only study in children and adolescents20 turned out to be inconclusive: in their small trial, Heiligenstein et al reported a statistically nonsignificant but possibly strong effect. As a consequence, while dose increase in children and adolescents or with SNRIs, TCAs, and MAOIs cannot be recommended on an evidence-based level, studies are clearly warranted. Citalopram may have to be viewed differently because the Kim et al22 study provides preliminary evidence for beneficial effects of increasing its dose (see above) and because there is some evidence that citalopram may be slightly more efficient at 40 mg than at 20 mg.42 To our knowledge, similar data are not available for fluvoxamine.43
The limitations of our systematic review and meta-analysis are those inherent to the studies included. For example, only 3 studies were considered to be low risk of bias studies.18,21,28 Still, even in low risk of bias trials, blinding may be compromised, and, unfortunately, none of the trials included assessed the success of blinding.44 As power calculations show, several studies19-22,27 were too small to detect intermediate effects (SMD = 0.5), and all but 1 study29 were too small to detect a common effect of 0.3 SMD. Meta-analysis, however, is one means to overcome the disadvantages of underpowered studies. ATF comprises both nonresponse and nonremission, and by combining both criteria, we ensured that we would not miss an effect of dose increase due to lack of power.
In spite of our highly sensitive search, carried out independently by 2 researchers in various databases, and in spite of a forward search in Web of Knowledge, it is possible that we missed relevant trials. Therefore, it is important to note that the number of trials necessary to flip our summary result to a positive impression of dose increase is high: For example, regarding SSRIs in adults with major depression, 10 studies showing a SMD of 0.5 in favor of dose increase were needed to change the picture. It seems unlikely that so many studies with a relatively strong effect should not have been published or overlooked in our search and in the pertaining literature.
Of note, the duration of treatment before randomization was relatively short in some studies, eg, in Licht and Qvitzau’s trial.18 Given the latency in antidepressant efficacy, the time span to achieve response may have been too short (Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression,45 Henssler et al46). For example, Fava et al,47,48 in studies without continuation arms, have documented beneficial effects of dose increase after patients had been treated for more than 4 weeks with a stable dose of fluoxetine (20 mg). It is also possible that a postrandomization response may have been the result of a dose increase prior to randomization. These effects may have confounded our results and thus limit what can be concluded from the studies under review. From a methodological view, therefore, studies with longer prerandomization periods are clearly desirable. However, from a clinical viewpoint, such rigorous studies are difficult to carry out because, for the research question at hand, it is methodologically imperative to retain a group of nonresponders in a continuation arm: Many nonresponders may not be willing to remain on the dose that has not been helpful for 8 weeks. It is also worth noting that in the studies of Ruhé et al21 and Kornstein et al28 in adults, with their 6-week treatment duration prior to randomization, results indicated no superiority of dose escalation.
Finally, this is not a meta-analysis comparing different doses right from the start of antidepressant pharmacotherapy. Furthermore, it is not an analysis of early dose increase studies. We consider antidepressant dose increase after very early signs of future nonresponse a different clinical scenario than ATF after a standardized antidepressant trial.49 Therefore, studies like the one by Ueno et al,50 who randomized patients after 1 week of initial treatment, were not included. Interestingly, even though their design did not meet our eligibility criteria, Ueno and colleagues’ results are compatible with our findings: Patients randomized to 30 mg/d of mirtazapine had no statistically significantly superior results compared to those continuing on 15 mg/d.
Clinically, and pending studies in children, with other antidepressants, and with longer initial treatment durations, we recommend not increasing the dose of antidepressants after initial treatment failure in antidepressant pharmacotherapy. Currently, evidence from meta-analyses favors other second-line treatments, such as lithium augmentation51-53 or augmentation with a second-generation antipsychotic.54 A recent systematic literature review and meta-analysis33 showed that combining a reuptake inhibitor with an antagonist of presynaptic α2-autoreceptors is superior to an antidepressant monotherapy, but it is unclear whether this finding translates into patients with ATF. Switching antidepressants has been shown to be unsuccessful in this difficult-to-treat subgroup of patients.55
In conclusion, we found evidence that increasing the dose of SSRIs (with the possible exception of citalopram) is not beneficial for adult patients who failed to respond to an antidepressant treatment trial of 3 to 6 weeks’ duration. Dose increase regimens with other groups of antidepressants, or after longer durations of initial treatment with antidepressants, are understudied and, therefore, cannot be recommended in clinical practice at this time but should be investigated in RCTs.
Additionally, special populations, for example, rapid metabolizers, should be the subject of RCTs to examine whether they benefit from different therapeutic strategies than other populations.
Submitted: May 13, 2017; accepted September 26, 2017.
Published online: May 15, 2018.
Potential conflicts of interest: None.
Funding/support: No direct funding was provided for this research.
Acknowledgment: The authors gratefully acknowledge the generous help of Henricus G. Ruhé, MD (University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands, and the Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford) in providing additional information regarding his and his coauthors’ trial.
Supplementary material: See accompanying pages.
1. Arroll B, Elley CR, Fishman T, et al. Antidepressants versus placebo for depression in primary care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(3):CD007954. PubMed
2. Cipriani A, Barbui C, Butler R, et al. Depression in adults: drug and physical treatments. BMJ Clin Evid. 2011;2011:1003. PubMed
3. Undurraga J, Baldessarini RJ. Randomized, placebo-controlled trials of antidepressants for acute major depression: thirty-year meta-analytic review. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2012;37(4):851-864. PubMed CrossRef
4. Williams JW Jr, Mulrow CD, Chiquette E, et al. A systematic review of newer pharmacotherapies for depression in adults, evidence report summary: clinical guideline, part 2. Ann Intern Med. 2000;132(9):743-756. PubMed CrossRef
5. Kennedy SH. A review of antidepressant therapy in primary care: current practices and future directions. Prim Care Companion CNS Disord. 2013;15(2):12r01420. PubMed
6. Bschor T, Bauer M, Adli M. Chronic and treatment resistant depression: diagnosis and stepwise therapy. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2014;111(45):766-775, quiz 775. PubMed
7. Gelenberg AJ, Freeman MP, Markowitz JC, et al; Work Group on Major Depressive Disorder. Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients With Major Depressive Disorder. 3rd ed. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association; 2010.
8. Bauer M, Pfennig A, Severus E, et al. World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) guidelines for biological treatment of unipolar depressive disorders, part 1: update 2013 on the acute and continuation treatment of unipolar depressive disorders. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2013;14(5):334-385. PubMed CrossRef
10. Kennedy SH, Lam RW, McIntyre RS, et al. Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) 2016 clinical guidelines for the management of adults with major depressive disorder, section 3: pharmacological treatments. Can J Psychiatry. 2016;61(9):540-560. PubMed CrossRef
12. Cleare A, Pariante CM, Young AH, et al. Evidence-based guidelines for treating depressive disorders with antidepressants: a revision of the 2008 British Association for Psychopharmacology guidelines. J Psychopharmacol. 2015;29(5):459-525. PubMed CrossRef
14. Furukawa TA, Onishi Y, Hinotsu S, et al. Prescription patterns following first-line new generation antidepressants for depression in Japan: a naturalistic cohort study based on a large claims database. J Affect Disord. 2013;150(3):916-922. PubMed CrossRef
15. Fredman SJ, Fava M, Kienke AS, et al. Partial response, nonresponse, and relapse with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in major depression: a survey of current "next-step" practices. J Clin Psychiatry. 2000;61(6):403-408. PubMed CrossRef
17. Adli M, Baethge C, Heinz A, et al. Is dose escalation of antidepressants a rational strategy after a medium-dose treatment has failed? a systematic review. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2005;255(6):387-400. PubMed CrossRef
18. Licht RW, Qvitzau S. Treatment strategies in patients with major depression not responding to first-line sertraline treatment: a randomised study of extended duration of treatment, dose increase or mianserin augmentation. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2002;161(2):143-151. PubMed CrossRef
19. Schweizer E, Rynn M, Mandos L, et al. The antidepressant effect of sertraline is not enhanced by dose titration: results from an outpatient clinical trial. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 2001;16(3):137-143. PubMed CrossRef
20. Heiligenstein JH, Hoog SL, Wagner KD, et al. Fluoxetine 40-60 mg versus fluoxetine 20 mg in the treatment of children and adolescents with a less-than-complete response to nine-week treatment with fluoxetine 10-20 mg: a pilot study. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2006;16(1-2):207-217. PubMed CrossRef
21. Ruhé HG, Booij J, v Weert HC, et al. Evidence why paroxetine dose escalation is not effective in major depressive disorder: a randomized controlled trial with assessment of serotonin transporter occupancy. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2009;34(4):999-1010. PubMed CrossRef
22. Kim H, Kim E, Lee H, et al. Dose escalation versus continued doses of escitalopram in depressed outpatients who did not remit to initial escitalopram treatment. Presented at the 29th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress; September 17-20, 2016; Vienna, Austria.
23. Ruhé HG, Huyser J, Swinkels JA, et al. Dose escalation for insufficient response to standard-dose selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in major depressive disorder: systematic review. Br J Psychiatry. 2006;189(04):309-316. PubMed CrossRef
26. Benkert O, Szegedi A, Wetzel H, et al. Dose escalation vs continued doses of paroxetine and maprotiline: a prospective study in depressed out-patients with inadequate treatment response. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1997;95(4):288-296. PubMed CrossRef
27. Schweizer E, Rickels K, Amsterdam J, et al. What constitutes an adequate antidepressant trial for fluoxetine? J Clin Psychiatry. 1990;51(1):8-11. PubMed
28. Kornstein SG, Dunner DL, Meyers AL, et al. A randomized, double-blind study of increasing or maintaining duloxetine dose in patients without remission of major depressive disorder after initial duloxetine therapy. J Clin Psychiatry. 2008;69(9):1383-1392. PubMed CrossRef
29. Dornseif BE, Dunlop SR, Potvin JH, et al. Effect of dose escalation after low-dose fluoxetine therapy. Psychopharmacol Bull. 1989;25(1):71-79. PubMed
30. Henssler J, Kurschus M, Franklin J, et al. Long-term acute-phase treatment with antidepressants, 8 weeks and beyond: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials. J Clin Psychiatry. 2018;79(1):15r10545. PubMed
31. Cipriani A, La Ferla T, Furukawa TA, et al. Sertraline versus other antidepressive agents for depression. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(1):CD006117. PubMed
32. Purgato M, Papola D, Gastaldon C, et al. Paroxetine versus other anti-depressive agents for depression. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(4):CD006531. PubMed
33. Henssler J, Bschor T, Baethge C. Combining antidepressants in acute treatment of depression: a meta-analysis of 38 studies including 4,511 patients. Can J Psychiatry. 2016;61(1):29-43. PubMed CrossRef
34. Zhou X, Keitner GI, Qin B, et al. Atypical antipsychotic augmentation for treatment-resistant depression: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2015;18(11):pyv060. PubMed CrossRef
35. Hieronymus F, Nilsson S, Eriksson E. A mega-analysis of fixed-dose trials reveals dose-dependency and a rapid onset of action for the antidepressant effect of three selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Transl Psychiatry. 2016;6(6):e834. PubMed CrossRef
37. Thase ME, Fayyad R, Cheng RF, et al. Effects of desvenlafaxine on blood pressure in patients treated for major depressive disorder: a pooled analysis. Curr Med Res Opin. 2015;31(4):809-820. PubMed CrossRef
40. Carvalho AF, Sharma MS, Brunoni AR, et al. The safety, tolerability and risks associated with the use of newer generation antidepressant drugs: a critical review of the literature. Psychother Psychosom. 2016;85(5):270-288. PubMed CrossRef
42. Montgomery SA, Pedersen V, Tanghoj P, et al. The optimal dosing regimen for citalopram: a meta-analysis of nine placebo-controlled studies. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 1994;9(suppl 1):35-40. PubMed CrossRef
43. Walczak DD, Apter JT, Halikas JA, et al. The oral dose-effect relationship for fluvoxamine: a fixed-dose comparison against placebo in depressed outpatients. Ann Clin Psychiatry. 1996;8(3):139-151. PubMed CrossRef
44. Baethge C, Assall OP, Baldessarini RJ. Systematic review of blinding assessment in randomized controlled trials in schizophrenia and affective disorders 2000-2010. Psychother Psychosom. 2013;82(3):152-160. PubMed CrossRef
46. Henssler J, Kurschus M, Franklin J, et al. Trajectories of acute antidepressant efficacy: how long to wait for response? A systematic review and meta-analysis of long-term, placebo-controlled acute treatment trials. J Clin Psychiatry. 2018;79(3):17r11470. PubMed
47. Fava M, Rosenbaum J, McGrath P, et al. Lithium and tricyclic augmentation of fluoxetine treatment for resistant major depression: a double-blind, controlled study. Am J Psychiatry. 1994;151(9):1372-1374. PubMed CrossRef
48. Fava M, Alpert J, Nierenberg A, et al. Double-blind study of high-dose fluoxetine versus lithium or desipramine augmentation of fluoxetine in partial responders and nonresponders to fluoxetine. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2002;22(4):379-387. PubMed CrossRef
49. Trivedi MH, Rush AJ, Gaynes BN, et al. Maximizing the adequacy of medication treatment in controlled trials and clinical practice: STAR*D measurement-based care. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2007;32(12):2479-2489. PubMed CrossRef
51. Crossley NA, Bauer M. Acceleration and augmentation of antidepressants with lithium for depressive disorders: two meta-analyses of randomized, placebo-controlled trials. J Clin Psychiatry. 2007;68(6):935-940. PubMed CrossRef
52. Nelson JC, Baumann P, Delucchi K, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of lithium augmentation of tricyclic and second generation antidepressants in major depression. J Affect Disord. 2014;168:269-275. PubMed CrossRef
53. Bauer M, Adli M, Bschor T, et al. Lithium’s emerging role in the treatment of refractory major depressive episodes: augmentation of antidepressants. Neuropsychobiology. 2010;62(1):36-42. PubMed CrossRef
54. Nelson JC, Papakostas GI. Atypical antipsychotic augmentation in major depressive disorder: a meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomized trials. Am J Psychiatry. 2009;166(9):980-991. PubMed CrossRef
55. Bschor T, Kern H, Henssler J, et al. Switching the antidepressant after nonresponse in adults with major depression: a systematic literature search and meta-analysis. J Clin Psychiatry. 2018;79(1):16r10749. PubMed
Quick Links: Depression (MDD)
Buy this Article as a PDF