• Users Online: 137
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 12  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 307-311

A head-to-head randomised controlled trial of aripiprazole versus quetiapine as augmenting agents in treatment-resistant depression


Department of Psychiatry, S S Institute of Medical Sciences, Davangere, Karnataka, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Alok V Kulkarni
Department of Psychiatry, S S Institute of Medical Sciences, Davangere, Karnataka
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/aihb.aihb_59_22

Rights and Permissions

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.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed142    
    Printed6    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded25    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal