guidelines for depression
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

43
(FIVE YEARS 7)

H-INDEX

8
(FIVE YEARS 2)

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (9) ◽  
pp. 587-625 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachael W Taylor ◽  
Lindsey Marwood ◽  
Emanuella Oprea ◽  
Valeria DeAngel ◽  
Sarah Mather ◽  
...  

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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 263 ◽  
pp. 382-385
Author(s):  
Joan C. Medina ◽  
Emma Schmelefske ◽  
Catherine Hébert ◽  
Martin Drapeau

Author(s):  
Franciele Cordeiro Gabriel ◽  
Daniela Oliveira de Melo ◽  
Eliane Ribeiro

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica Hanae Zafra-Tanaka ◽  
Sergio Goicochea-Lugo ◽  
David Villarreal-Zegarra ◽  
Alvaro Taype-Rondan

2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 530-540 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn Bennett ◽  
Darren Courtney ◽  
Stephanie Duda ◽  
Joanna Henderson ◽  
Peter Szatmari

2016 ◽  
Vol 40 ◽  
pp. 1-3 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Hallgren ◽  
B. Stubbs ◽  
D. Vancampfort ◽  
A. Lundin ◽  
P. Jääkallio ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document