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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inAdvances in human biology Vol. 12; no. 3; pp. 307 - 311
Main Author Kulkarni, Alok
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Wolters Kluwer - Medknow Publications 01.09.2022
Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd
Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
Subjects
Advertising executives
antidepressants
Aripiprazole
Clinical trials
depression
Depression, Mental
Drug therapy
mdrs
Medical research
Medicine, Experimental
Quetiapine
Rasagiline
aripiprazole
depression
MDRS
Antidepressants
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
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