Cited by 140Treatment of Major DepressionElectroconvulsive Therapy StudiesPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Augmentation therapies for treatment-resistant depression: systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Strawbridge, Rebecca, Carter, Ben, Marwood, Lindsey, Bandelow, Borwin, Tsapekos, Dimosthenis, Nikolova, Viktoriya L., Taylor, Rachael, Mantingh, Tim +4 more·2019·British Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: Depression is considered to have the highest disability burden of all conditions. Although treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is a key contributor to that burden, there is little understanding of the best treatment approaches for it and specifically the effectiveness of available augmentation approaches. Aims: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to search and quantify the evidence of psychological and pharmacological augmentation interventions for TRD. Method: Participants with TRD (defined as insufficient response to at least two antidepressants) were randomised to at least one augmentation treatment in the trial. Pre-post analysis assessed treatment effectiveness, providing an effect size (ES) independent of comparator interventions. Results: Of 28 trials, 3 investigated psychological treatments and 25 examined pharmacological interventions. Pre-post analyses demonstrated N -methyl- d -aspartate-targeting drugs to have the highest ES (ES = 1.48, 95% CI 1.25–1.71). Other than aripiprazole (four studies, ES = 1.33, 95% CI 1.23–1.44) and lithium (three studies, ES = 1.00, 95% CI 0.81–1.20), treatments were each investigated in less than three studies. Overall, pharmacological (ES = 1.19, 95% CI 1.08–1.30) and psychological (ES = 1.43, 95% CI 0.50–2.36) therapies yielded higher ESs than pill placebo (ES = 0.78, 95% CI 0.66–0.91) and psychological control (ES = 0.94, 95% CI 0.36–1.52). Conclusions: Despite being used widely in clinical practice, the evidence for augmentation treatments in TRD is sparse. Although pre-post meta-analyses are limited by the absence of direct comparison, this work finds promising evidence across treatment modalities. Declaration of interest: In the past 3 years, A.H.Y. received honoraria for speaking from AstraZeneca, Lundbeck, Eli Lilly and Sunovion; honoraria for consulting from Allergan, Livanova and Lundbeck, Sunovion and Janssen; and research grant support from Janssen. In the past 3 years, A.J.C. received honoraria for speaking from AstraZeneca and Lundbeck; honoraria for consulting with Allergan, Janssen, Livanova, Lundbeck and Sandoz; support for conference attendance from Janssen; and research grant support from Lundbeck. B.B. has recently been (soon to be) on the speakers/advisory board for Hexal, Lilly, Lundbeck, Mundipharma, Pfizer, and Servier. No other conflicts of interest.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1192/bjp.2018.233

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Earlier meta-analyses found evidence supporting atypical antipsychotics, lithium, ketamine, and esketamine.

    “Previous meta-analyses have shown evidence for the use of AAs, lithium, ketamine and esketamine (Carter et al., 2020; Strawbridge et al., 2019; Vázquez et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2015).”

    From Augmentation strategies for treatment resistant major depression: A systematic review and network meta-analysis (2022) · cites this paper as Strawbridge et al., 2019

    The Clinical implications table reports meta-analytic results for antipsychotics, lithium and ketamine. The discussion describes aripiprazole as effective and lithium evidence as promising but less certain. Our copy does not report results for esketamine, so this source supports only part of the cited sentence. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Aripiprazole as an augmentation agent at a mean dose of 10.68 ± 3.1 mg/day showed significant benefit and had low discontinuation rates.

    “Aripiprazole as an augmentation agent (mean dose,10.68 ± 3.1 mg/day) showed significant benefit and had low discontinuation rates, which aligns with previous studies (Seshadri et al., 2021; Strawbridge et al., 2019).”

    From Augmentation strategies for treatment resistant major depression: A systematic review and network meta-analysis (2022) · cites this paper as Strawbridge et al., 2019

    The 'Pharmacological interventions without high' section reports a consistent effect for aripiprazole across four studies, supporting the claimed benefit. The 'Tolerability and acceptability' section discusses dropout rates but does not give a low discontinuation rate for aripiprazole, and the copy does not substantiate the stated mean dose of 10.68 ± 3.1 mg/day. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 47 · Cited by 140

Authors
Strawbridge, R., Carter, B., Marwood, L., Bandelow, B., Tsapekos, D., Nikolova, V. L., Taylor, R., Mantingh, T., de Angel, V., Patrick, F., Cleare, A. J., & Young, A. H.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Universitätsmedizin Göttingen (DE)
  • National Health Service (GB)
Corresponding author
Strawbridge, Rebecca
Venue
British Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2018-11-20
Volume
214
Issue
1
Pages
42-51
ISSN
  • 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
  • 1472-1465
OpenAlex
W2901476334
Cited by
140
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 1
FWCI
1.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The British Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • GoeScholar The Publication Server of the Georg-August-Universität Göttingen (Georg-August-Universität Göttingen) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Eli Lilly and Company
  • Pfizer
  • AstraZeneca
  • South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
  • Sunovion
  • LivaNova
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0616-10091)
  • King's College London
  • Servier
  • H. Lundbeck A/S
  • Allergan
  • Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London
  • Menzies Centre for Australian Studies, King's College London, University of London
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Electroconvulsive Therapy Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
treatment-resistant depression, antidepressant augmentation, NMDA receptor antagonists, aripiprazole, lithium, relapse prevention, cognitive behavioral therapy, mindfulness-based cognitive therapy
MeSH terms
Antidepressive Agents, Humans, Psychotherapy, Treatment Outcome, Depressive Disorder, Treatment-Resistant

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review