View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Defining treatment-resistant depression.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Defining treatment-resistant depression.
Authors: Gaynes, Bradley N. (AUTHOR), Lux, Linda (AUTHOR), Gartlehner, Gerald (AUTHOR), Asher, Gary (AUTHOR), Forman‐Hoffman, Valerie (AUTHOR), Green, Josh (AUTHOR), Boland, Erin (AUTHOR), Weber, Rachel P. (AUTHOR), Randolph, Charli (AUTHOR), Bann, Carla (AUTHOR), Coker‐Schwimmer, Emmanuel (AUTHOR), Viswanathan, Meera (AUTHOR), Lohr, Kathleen N. (AUTHOR), Forman-Hoffman, Valerie (AUTHOR), Coker-Schwimmer, Emmanuel (AUTHOR)
Source: Depression & Anxiety (1091-4269). Feb2020, Vol. 37 Issue 2, p134-145. 12p. 4 Charts.
Subjects: United States. Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality, Mental depression, Definitions, Meta-analysis
Abstract: Background: Varying conceptualizations of treatment-resistant depression (TRD) have made translating research findings or systematic reviews into clinical practice guidelines challenging and inconsistent.Methods: We conducted a review for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to clarify how experts and investigators have defined TRD and to review systematically how well this definition comports with TRD definitions in clinical trials through July 5, 2019.Results: We found that no consensus definition existed for TRD. The most common TRD definition for major depressive disorder required a minimum of two prior treatment failures and confirmation of prior adequate dose and duration. The most common TRD definition for bipolar disorder required one prior treatment failure. No clear consensus emerged on defining adequacy of either dose or duration. Our systematic review found that only 17% of intervention studies enrolled samples meeting the most frequently specified criteria for TRD. Depressive outcomes and clinical global impressions were commonly measured; functional impairment and quality-of-life tools were rarely used.Conclusions: Two key steps are critical to advancing TRD research: (a) Developing a consensus definition of TRD that addresses how best to specify the number of prior treatment failures and the adequacy of dose and duration; and (b) identifying a core package of outcome measures that can be applied in a standardized manner. Our recommendations about stronger approaches to designing and conducting TRD research will foster better evidence to translate into clearer guidelines for treating patients with this serious condition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Depression & Anxiety (1091-4269) is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Description
Abstract:<bold>Background: </bold>Varying conceptualizations of treatment-resistant depression (TRD) have made translating research findings or systematic reviews into clinical practice guidelines challenging and inconsistent.<bold>Methods: </bold>We conducted a review for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to clarify how experts and investigators have defined TRD and to review systematically how well this definition comports with TRD definitions in clinical trials through July 5, 2019.<bold>Results: </bold>We found that no consensus definition existed for TRD. The most common TRD definition for major depressive disorder required a minimum of two prior treatment failures and confirmation of prior adequate dose and duration. The most common TRD definition for bipolar disorder required one prior treatment failure. No clear consensus emerged on defining adequacy of either dose or duration. Our systematic review found that only 17% of intervention studies enrolled samples meeting the most frequently specified criteria for TRD. Depressive outcomes and clinical global impressions were commonly measured; functional impairment and quality-of-life tools were rarely used.<bold>Conclusions: </bold>Two key steps are critical to advancing TRD research: (a) Developing a consensus definition of TRD that addresses how best to specify the number of prior treatment failures and the adequacy of dose and duration; and (b) identifying a core package of outcome measures that can be applied in a standardized manner. Our recommendations about stronger approaches to designing and conducting TRD research will foster better evidence to translate into clearer guidelines for treating patients with this serious condition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:10914269
DOI:10.1002/da.22968