Background: Clinically relevant issues in the real-world treatment of depression have not always been captured by conventional treatment guidelines.
Methods: Certified psychiatrists of the Japanese Society of Clinical Neuropsychopharmacology were asked to evaluate treatment options regarding 23 clinical situations in the treatment of depression using a 9-point Likert scale (1="disagree" and 9="agree"). According to the responses of 114 experts, the options were categorized into first-, second-, and third-line treatments.
Results: First-line antidepressants varied depending on predominant symptoms: escitalopram (mean ± standard deviation score, 7.8 ± 1.7) and sertraline (7.3 ± 1.7) were likely selected for anxiety; duloxetine (7.6 ± 1.9) and venlafaxine (7.2 ± 2.1) for loss of interest; mirtazapine for insomnia (8.2 ± 1.6), loss of appetite (7.9 ± 1.9), agitation and severe irritation (7.4 ± 2.0), and suicidal ideation (7.5 ± 1.9). While first-line treatment was switched to either an SNRI (7.7 ± 1.9) or mirtazapine (7.4 ± 2.0) in the case of non-response to an SSRI, switching to mirtazapine (7.1 ± 2.2) was recommended in the case of non-response to an SNRI, and vice versa (switching to an SNRI (7.0 ± 2.0) in the case of non-response to mirtazapine). Augmentation with aripiprazole was considered the first-line treatment for partial response to an SSRI (7.1 ± 2.3) or SNRI (7.0 ± 2.5).
Limitations: The evidence level of expert consensus is considered low. All included experts were Japanese.
Conclusions: Recommendations made by experts in the field are useful and can supplement guidelines and informed decision making in real-world clinical practice. We suggest that pharmacological strategies for depression be flexible and that each patient's situational needs as well as the pharmacotherapeutic profile of medications be considered.
Keywords: Antidepressant; Depression; Expert consensus guideline; Treatment guideline.
Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.