A head-to-head randomised controlled trial of aripiprazole versus quetiapine as augmenting agents in treatment-resistant depression
Introduction: Almost 30%-50% of the patients with major depressive disorder can be categorised as treatment-resistant depression (TRD). The use of augmenting agents such as aripiprazole (ARI) and quetiapine (QP) to the existing antidepressant (AD) therapy could be a suitable alternative for treating...
Saved in:
Published in | Advances in human biology Vol. 12; no. 3; pp. 307 - 311 |
---|---|
Main Author | |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Wolters Kluwer - Medknow Publications
01.09.2022
Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | Introduction: Almost 30%-50% of the patients with major depressive disorder can be categorised as treatment-resistant depression (TRD). The use of augmenting agents such as aripiprazole (ARI) and quetiapine (QP) to the existing antidepressant (AD) therapy could be a suitable alternative for treating TRD. The superiority of anyone over others is not established in short-term studies. Hence, the present study was performed to compare the safety and efficacy of ARI and QP for the treatment of TRD. Materials and Methods: In the present study, a total of 50 patients with TRD who showed insufficient response to at least two ADs for 12 weeks were enrolled. The participants were assigned randomly in a double-blind trial to receive ARI (10 mg/day; n = 25) or QP (300 mg/day; n = 25) in addition to their standard AD therapy for 12 weeks. Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scale were used to measure treatment efficacy. The safety was evaluated by recording treatment-caused adverse effects (AEF). Results: A significant decrease in MADRS score was observed with ARI groups than in the QP group (‒7.5; ‒4.6, P < 0.001). The CGI scores in the ARI group also exhibit significant improvement compared with the QP group. There was a non-significant change in CGI score recorded in both groups. The AEF was observed in 11% of patients with more incidences in the QP groups. The incidences of AEFs resulting in discontinuation of therapy were found low in both groups (ARI: 1.6%; QP: 3.2%). Conclusion: The findings of this study conclude that TRD patients can be more benefitted by ARI augmentation therapy than QP. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2321-8568 2348-4691 |
DOI: | 10.4103/aihb.aihb_59_22 |