Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Dose escalation for insufficient response to standard-dose selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in major depressive disorder

Systematic review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Henricus G. Ruhé
Affiliation:
Program for Mood Disorders AMC/De Meren, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Jochanan Huyser
Affiliation:
Program for Mood Disorders AMC/De Meren, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Jan A. Swinkels
Affiliation:
Program for Mood Disorders AMC/De Meren, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Aart H. Schene
Affiliation:
Program for Mood Disorders AMC/De Meren, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Corresponding
E-mail address:
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Although selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are frequently used for major depressive disorder, only 50–60% of patients respond to a standard dose. For non-responders, dose escalation is often applied.

Aim

To systematically review the evidence for dose escalation of SSRIs.

Method

A systematic literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycInfo was performed. Randomised controlled trials and meta-analyses investigating dose escalation of SSRIs were identified. Relevant articles were retrieved and critically appraised. Results were summarised in an evidence table. Pooling was not justified because of heterogeneity of the identified studies.

Results

Eight true dose-escalation studies and three meta-analyses were identified. The available data provided no unequivocal base for dose escalation. Dose escalation before 4 weeks of treatment at a standard dose appeared to be ineffective.

Conclusions

Dose escalation of SSRIs is equivocally supported by evidence of randomised controlled trials; methodological difficulties in the studies may account for this lack of evidence.

Type
Review Article
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2006 

So far many countries have developed national clinical guidelines for the treatment of major depressive disorder (Depression Guideline Panel, 1993a , b ; Reference Rush, Crismon and TopracRush et al, 1998; Reference Mulrow, Williams and TrivediMulrow et al, 1999; American Psychiatric Association, 2000; Reference Anderson, Nutt and DeakinAnderson et al, 2000; Reference Kennedy, Lam and CohenKennedy et al, 2001; National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2004). In these guidelines pharmacotherapy is among the most important treatments, and in many countries selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have become the first-line antidepressants. It is less clear what should be done in those 40–50% of patients who do not respond to the first antidepressant administered (Reference Thase, Rush, Bloom and KupferThase & Rush, 1995; Reference Kroenke, West and SwindleKroenke et al, 2001). Strategies in case of non-response have been published in several narrative reviews (Reference Thase and RushThase & Rush, 1997; Reference NelsonNelson, 1998; Reference Crismon, Trivedi and PigottCrismon et al, 1999; Fava, Reference Fava2000a ,Reference Fava b ; Reference O'Reardon, Brunswick and AmsterdamO'Reardon et al, 2000; Reference MarangellMarangell, 2001; Reference Trivedi and KleiberTrivedi & Kleiber, 2001; Reference Hirschfeld, Montgomery and AgugliaHirschfeld et al, 2002; Reference Kennedy, McIntyre and FalluKennedy et al, 2002; Reference AndersonAnderson, 2003; Reference Kennedy and McDonoughKennedy & McDonough, 2003; Reference McIntyre, Muller and ManciniMcIntyre et al, 2003; Reference NelsonNelson, 2003) and in one systematic review (Reference Stimpson, Agrawal and LewisStimpson et al, 2002). Three major strategies for non-response are recommended: dose escalation, augmenting the antidepressant by adding a second drug, and switching to another antidepressant of the same or a different class.

Available dose-finding studies do not provide evidence for initiating pharmacotherapy for major depressive disorder with SSRIs in higher than standard doses (Reference Altamura, Montgomery and WernickeAltamura et al, 1988; Reference Beasley, Bosomworth and WernickeBeasley et al, 1990; Reference Dunner and DunbarDunner & Dunbar, 1992; Reference Tignol, Stoker and DunbarTignol et al, 1992; Reference Montgomery, Pedersen and TanghojMontgomery et al, 1994). For non-responders, all guidelines recommend dose escalation as the appropriate strategy, instead of continuing an apparently inadequate regimen (Depression Guideline Panel, 1993a ; b ; Reference Rush, Crismon and TopracRush et al, 1998; Reference Mulrow, Williams and TrivediMulrow et al, 1999; American Psychiatric Association, 2000; Reference Anderson, Nutt and DeakinAnderson et al, 2000; Reference Kennedy, Lam and CohenKennedy et al, 2001). Only the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guideline is less definite (National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2004), advising that if ‘there are no significant side-effects, a gradual increase in dose should be considered’. Moreover, surprisingly little systematic evidence is provided to support these recommendations. Because of the above recommendations and because of its simplicity, dose escalation is widely practised and often the first strategy applied (Reference Byrne and RothschildByrne & Rothschild, 1997; Reference Shergill and KatonaShergill & Katona, 1997; Reference Fredman, Fava and KienkeFredman et al, 2000; Reference Mischoulon, Nierenberg and KizilbashMischoulon et al, 2000). The aim of our study was to systematically review the evidence for dose escalation of SSRIs in major depressive disorder.

METHOD

Design of studies to be included

Ideally the design of dose-escalation studies is randomisation of non-responders to higher doses of an antidepressant or placebo after some weeks of a standard-dose regimen. In this review we consider three other methodological requirements for such studies. First, dose escalation should be deferred to 3–6 weeks after initiation of treatment, because several weeks are required for antidepressants to have clinical effect (Reference MischoulonMischoulon, 1997). The practice of dose escalation and the demonstration of a dose–response relationship is based on selection of ‘true’ nonresponders (Reference Baker and WoodsBaker & Woods, 2003). As this might take 6–10 weeks (Reference Quitkin, Petkova and McGrathQuitkin et al, 2003), dose-escalation studies with early randomisation diminish the possibility of proving the usefulness of dose escalation. The inclusion of unidentified late responders in both arms of the study reduces the contrast between the intervention and control. Second, an outstanding study will have sufficient power to be able to demonstrate a clinically relevant difference (e.g. 20%) between treatment arms and, third, will describe the method of dose escalation and describe the early drop-out rates because of dose escalation.

Identification and selection of articles

First, systematic literature searches (updated 10 February 2005) were performed in four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo; all indexed years). As there are no specific keywords for dose-escalation studies, sensitive searches were performed with the following terms: (((dose[textword(tw)] OR dosage[tw]) AND increase[tw]) OR ((dose[tw] OR dosage[tw]) AND maxim*[tw]) OR (upward[tw] AND titrat*[tw])) OR dose–response relationship, drug[MeSH], in combination with the Cochrane Collaboration search-filter for randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews, the Cochrane Collaboration Depression Anxiety and Neurosis group search-filter for major depressive disorder and MeSH-terms and text words for SSRIs. Primary selection (independently by H.R. and J.H.) was based on design and focused on dose–response relationships for SSRIs, by screening title and abstract of the article. Agreement on exclusion of irrelevant articles was 99.1%, with Cohen's kappa for interrater agreement 0.62 (which is a substantial agreement (Reference Munoz and BangdiwalaMunoz & Bangdiwala, 1997)). Discrepancies between initial selection were resolved by discussion and consensus.

Second, all potentially relevant articles were judged according to specific inclusion and exclusion criteria (criteria available from H.R. on request). In case of doubt, an article was read fully and assigned afterwards. Additionally, relevant cross-references were retrieved. Double publications were considered together to reveal the maximum available information.

Critical appraisal and summary

Next, selected articles were critically appraised and abstracted by H.R., using standardised forms derived from the Dutch Institute of Healthcare Improvement (Kwaliteitsinstituut voor de Gezondheidszorg CBO, 2000) and the Agency for Healthcare Policy and Research (Reference Mulrow, Williams and TrivediMulrow et al, 1999). The items used for critical appraisal were the same as proposed by the Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (2001) and Sackett et al (Reference Sackett, Straus and Richardson2000). Each study was assigned a ‘level of evidence’ (Table 1). Levels of evidence were based on the methodological robustness of studies. For the results, the highest level of evidence of the supporting scientific evidence (A1–D) was used.

Table 1 Levels of evidence in therapeutic studies

Level Type of study
A1 Systematic review including at least some studies of A2 level. Consistent results (homogeneity) across the included trials
A2 Randomised controlled (double-blind) trial of good methodological quality, adequate size and consistency of results
B Randomised clinical trial of lower methodological quality or inadequate size. Other comparative research (e.g. non-randomised trial, comparative cohort study, case—control study)
C Uncontrolled, open study
D Expert opinion, e.g. guideline panel members

To assess judgement bias of the person who performed the critical appraisal, inter-rater variation was determined in a slightly different set of 12 publications. We all critically appraised four publications, and agreement for the appraisal items was expressed by Cohen's kappa. Kappa values were 0.49 (for validity of the study), 0.86 (for concealment of allocation); complete agreement existed for randomisation of the study, level of evidence and data extraction (kappa=1.0). This is in line with other reports of interrater agreement in appraisal of psychiatric research (Reference Moncrieff, Churchill and DrummondMoncrieff et al, 2001).

A qualitative summary with discussion of the results, restrictions, methodological flaws and external validity of the studies was described in an evidence table and a separate document, of which a summary is provided in this paper. Because of the apparent heterogeneity in timing of the dose escalation between the studies, results were not pooled in a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Search results and selection of studies are presented in Fig. 1. The 11 studies selected for this review are summarised in Table 2. A table of excluded studies is available from H.R. on request.

Fig. 1 Selection process for reported studies.

Table 2 Effectiveness of increasing the dose: selected studies

Study LoE n Design (follow-up) Intervention1 Comparison1 Outcome2 Remarks
Dose escalation studies
Benkert et al (Reference Benkert, Szegedi and Wetzel1997) B 544 (MDD, MinD, OutP) RCT of week 3 non-responders3 (n= 86) (3 weeks) PAR 40 mg PAR 20 mg Response (≥50% ↓ in HRSD17) All: NNTPAR40mg=100 (5.1-∞) For MDD only: NNTPAR40mg=8 (2.4-∞) For baseline HRSD ≥24: NNTPAR40mg=6 (1.7-∞) Study includes MinD (42% of randomised patients). Dose titration resulted in 18-20% new side-effects. No specified rates of drop-out. Response rate in placebo groups 75%. Study also investigates maprotiline dose escalation (data N/A)
Dornseif et al (Reference Dornseif, Dunlop and Potvin1989) B 572 (MDD, OutP) RCT of week 3 non-responders4 (n= 371) (5 weeks) FLX 60 mg FLX 20 mg Response (≥50% ↓ in HRSD21) NNT=25 (6.5-∞) Remission (HRSD21≤7) NNT=36 (7.3-∞) Response (CGI-1 ≤2) NNT=20 (6.5-∞) Drop-outSE NNH=16 (8.3-144) Masking is unclear. More side-effects in FLX 60 mg (n.s.). Response rate in placebo group 40.5%
Fava et al (Reference Fava, Cohen and Rosenbaum1992) C 15 (MDD, OutP) Open trial of non-responders4 to 8-12 weeks of FLX 20 mg (4 weeks) FLX 40-80 mg (if tolerated) - Decrease in HRSD17 scores in NR (-6.2) and PR(-10.1) (P<0.05) Decrease in CGI—S in NR (-0.9; ns) and PR (-2.0 P<0.05) Highly selected population (tertiary care). No placebo control. Limited power
Fava et al (Reference Fava, Rosenbaum and McGrath1994) B 41 (MDD, Setting?) RCT of non-responders4 to 8 weeks of FLX 20 mg (4 weeks) FLX 40-60 mg (if tolerated) FLX 20 mg+DES 25-50 mg FLX 20 mg+Li 300-600 mg Remission (HRSD17 ≤7) NNTall=4 (1.6-∞) NNHNR=6 (1.5-∞) (v. Li) NNTPR=2 (0.9-2.8) (v. Li) Drop-outSE NNH=6 (2.6-∞) (v. Li) Limited presentation of study population. No placebo control. Limited power, particularly in subgroup analyses
Fava et al (Reference Fava, Alpert and Nierenberg2002) B 101 (MDD, OutP) RCT of non-responders4 to 8 weeks of FLX 20 mg (4 weeks) FLX 40-60 mg (if tolerated) FLX 20 mg+DES 25-50 mg FLX 20 mg+Li 300-600 mg Remission (HRSD17 ≤7) NNTall=6 (2.4-∞) (v. Li) NNTNR=5 (2.0-∞) (v. Li) NNTPR=6 (2.0-∞) (v. Li) Drop-outSE NA No placebo control. Limited power, particularly in subgroup analyses
Licht & Qvitzau (Reference Licht and Qvitzau2002) A2 1629 (MDD, OutP) RCT of week 6 non-responders4 (n=295) (5 weeks) SER 200 mg SER 100 mg + PLAC Response (≥50% ↓ in HRSD17) NNH=7 (3.6-74.4) Response (CGI—1 ≤2) NNH=6 (3.4-16.4) Remission (HRSD17 ≤7) NNH=12 (4.5-∞) Drop-outSE difference NS Dosage SER was increased from 50 mg to 100 mg 2 weeks before randomisation. Response rate in placebo-group 70.4%
Schweizer et al (Reference Schweizer, Rickels and Amsterdam1990) B 108 (MDD, OutP) RCT of week 3 non-responders4 (n=77) (5 weeks) FLX 60 mg FLX 20 mg Response (≥50% ↓ in HRSD17) NNT=82 (4.2-∞) Drop-outSE NNH=9 (3.9-∞) Side-effects increased in FLX 60 mg (trend) Generalisation to other SSRIs might be difficult because of long half-life of FLX and its metabolite. Response rate in placebo group 51.2%
Schweizer et al (Reference Schweizer, Rynn and Mandos2001) B 91 (MDD, OutP) RCT of week 3 non-remitters5 (n=75) (5 weeks) SER 150 mg SER 50 mg Remission (HRSD17 ≤8) NNT=7 (2.7-∞) Response (CGI-I ≤2) NNT=5 (2.3-61.5) Drop-out NNH=34 (8.5-∞) Side-effects both increased or decreased (trends) in SER 150 mg Study is marginally described. Masking unclear. Remission rate in placebo group 32%
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses
Baker et al (Reference Baker, Tweedie and Duval2003) A2 1102+ 573 (MDD, Setting?) Meta-analysis of 4 fixed-dose RCTs (3-7 weeks) and of 4 dose-escalation RCTs (3-5 weeks) of NR in weeks 3-8 (SSRIs only) Medium/high dose and dose escalation Low dose adding PLAC (or Li+DES) Increase in response rate (≥50% ↓ in HRSD) across dose range: ITT=-9.5% (NS), DT=7.8% (P<0.01), and ITT=6% (NS), DT=9.3% (NS) Change of HRSD decrease across dose range: ITT=-2.0 (P<0.0001), DT=unavailable, and ITT=1.93 (P<0.01), DT unavailable Date of systematic search not given. No appraisal of studies. Heterogeneity of dose-escalation studies ignored in meta-analysis. Dose—response relationship calculated as regression slope using SME. Low standard dose (5 mg) for FLX used as reference for SME. ITT population used to estimate expressed dose—response relationship. Potential dose—response relationship estimated in a dose-tolerant sample, omitting drop-outs because of side-effects6 Meta-analysis using regression models. Highly heterogeneous studies (i.e. designs) pooled, no separation of various antidepressant classes, non-systematic bias particularly for SSRIs by conversion to IMI-equivalents Search of MEDLINE only. No appraisal of studies. No pooling or exploration of differences between identified studies and dose—response relationship data per drug
Bollini et al (Reference Bollini, Pampallona and Tibaldi1999) A2 5844 (MDD, InP & OutP) Meta-analysis of 33 RCTs (1975-1997) with various antidepressants (3-156 weeks) Higher doses: IMI-equivalent 201-250 and >250 mg Average daily dose (IMI-equivalent 100-200 mg) Efficacy in ITT analysis:7 53.3%, 46.3%, 48.3% Completers analysis: 69%, 67.3%, 76% Drop-out rates: 22%, 28%, 35% Side-effects: 30%, 36%, 48%
Corruble & Guelfi (Reference Corruble and Guelfi2000) C n? (MDD, Setting?) Review of literature of RCTs investigating dose—response relation for SSRIs High-dose SSRI Standard-dose SSRI Qualitative description of dose—response relationship per drug. Only for CIT and FLX possibly curvilinear, other SSRIs flat dose—response relationship

Characteristics of the studies

Our searches identified eight dose-escalation studies that increased dosages after at least 3 weeks of standard dosage (Reference Dornseif, Dunlop and PotvinDornseif et al, 1989; Schweizer et al, Reference Schweizer, Rickels and Amsterdam1990, Reference Schweizer, Rynn and Mandos2001; Fava et al, Reference Fava, Cohen and Rosenbaum1992, Reference Fava, Rosenbaum and McGrath1994, Reference Fava, Alpert and Nierenberg2002; Reference Benkert, Szegedi and WetzelBenkert et al, 1997; Reference Licht and QvitzauLicht & Qvitzau, 2002). We further found three systematic reviews about dose–response relationships, which included, respectively, three (Reference Bollini, Pampallona and TibaldiBollini et al, 1999), three (Reference Corruble and GuelfiCorruble & Guelfi, 2000) and four (Reference Baker, Tweedie and DuvalBaker et al, 2003) of the eight identified dose-escalation studies.

Across the studies different outcome definitions for end-points were used. In seven articles, response was defined as a reduction of ≥50% in the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) score (Reference Dornseif, Dunlop and PotvinDornseif et al, 1989; Reference Schweizer, Rickels and AmsterdamSchweizer et al, 1990; Reference Benkert, Szegedi and WetzelBenkert et al, 1997; Reference Licht and QvitzauLicht & Qvitzau, 2002; Reference Baker, Tweedie and DuvalBaker et al, 2003). A Clinical Global Impression (CGI) improvement or severity score ≤2 was used for response in one study (Reference Schweizer, Rynn and MandosSchweizer et al, 2001). Partial response was used in three studies and defined as 25–50% decrease in HRSD score (Fava et al, Reference Fava, Cohen and Rosenbaum1992, Reference Fava, Rosenbaum and McGrath1994, Reference Fava, Alpert and Nierenberg2002). In seven studies, remission-rates were reported. These were defined as HRSD score ≤7 (Fava et al, Reference Fava, Rosenbaum and McGrath1994, Reference Fava, Alpert and Nierenberg2002; Reference Licht and QvitzauLicht & Qvitzau, 2002) or HRSD score ≤8 (Reference Schweizer, Rynn and MandosSchweizer et al, 2001).

Different criteria were applied to decide whether a patient should be randomised: non-response according to CGI (Reference Benkert, Szegedi and WetzelBenkert et al, 1997), <50% decrease in HRSD score (Reference Dornseif, Dunlop and PotvinDornseif et al, 1989; Reference Schweizer, Rickels and AmsterdamSchweizer et al, 1990; Fava et al, Reference Fava, Rosenbaum and McGrath1994, Reference Fava, Alpert and Nierenberg2002) or no remission (HRSD score ≤8 (Reference Schweizer, Rynn and MandosSchweizer et al, 2001)). In the present studies no genetic information of the cytochrome P450 (CYP) system nor drug blood levels were reported.

The three previous reviews all had some methodological problems: Bollini et al (Reference Bollini, Pampallona and Tibaldi1999) pooled studies with completely different designs and drug classes, and applied a dose equivalence strategy that put differential doses of SSRIs together. Baker et al (Reference Baker, Tweedie and Duval2003) also pooled heterogeneous studies with different moments of dose escalation, and used an unusually low reference dose of fluoxetine (5 mg). Corruble & Guelfi (Reference Corruble and Guelfi2000) did not use an adequate search strategy and only described the dose–response relationships found in their identified studies as flat, curvilinear or linear.

We will briefly outline the dose-escalation studies. Dorseif et al (1989) first investigated week-3 non-responders (n=371 out-patients) to fluoxetine, who were randomised to continuation with 20 mg or increase to 60 mg/day for 5 weeks. Response rates were 40.5% and 44.7%, respectively, and remission rates 33.3% and 36.2%, respectively. Drop-out rates because of side-effects were significantly different at 5.3% and 11.6%, respectively. Schweizer et al (Reference Schweizer, Rickels and Amsterdam1990) investigated 77 non-responsive out-patients after 3 weeks’ administration of fluoxetine (20 mg/day), with a randomisation to placebo increase or dose escalation up to 60 mg/day for 5 weeks. Response rates were 51.2% and 50%, respectively, with non-significant drop-out rates of 4.9% v. 16.7%. In a similar study, Schweizer et al (Reference Schweizer, Rynn and Mandos2001) studied dose escalation of sertraline in out-patient non-remitters after 3 weeks of sertraline (50 mg/day, n=75). Doses were randomly either kept at 50 mg/day or increased to 150 mg/day. Remission rates after 5 weeks were 32% and 47%, respectively (non-significant). Specified drop-out rates because of side-effects were not reported.

Fava et al (Reference Fava, Cohen and Rosenbaum1992) first openly treated 15 out-patients (who were week-8 non-responders to fluoxetine at 20 mg/day) with increased doses of fluoxetine titrated up to 80 mg/day for 4 weeks. No response rates were given, but the mean 17-item HRSD score decreased 6.2 points in week-8 non-responders and 10.1 points in partial responders. In a second study, Fava et al (Reference Fava, Rosenbaum and McGrath1994) randomised week-8 non-responders to fluoxetine 20 mg/day (n=41) to either fluoxetine 40–60 mg, desipramine addition or lithium addition for 4 weeks. No placebo increase was practised. Remission rates were 53%, 25% and 29%, respectively, but these differences were non-significant. Initial partial responders appeared to benefit most from fluoxetine dose increases (data non-significant). Drop-out rates for side-effects were 0%, 17% and 7%, respectively. In a third study, Fava et al (Reference Fava, Alpert and Nierenberg2002) repeated the three-arm randomised design from their 1994 study with a stratification for partial or non-response at week 8 (n=101). After 4 weeks, the high-dose fluoxetine group showed increased but non-significant remission rates (42.4%) compared with desipramine addition (29.4%) and lithium addition (23.5%). Again initial partial responders appeared to benefit more from fluoxetine dose increases compared with initial non-responders (differences non-significant). No specific data on drop-out because of side-effects were given.

Benkert et al (Reference Benkert, Szegedi and Wetzel1997) investigated dose escalation of paroxetine (20 mg/day) in out-patients who were depressed or had minor depression. Those who did not respond after 3 weeks of treatment (n=86) were randomised to receive 40 mg paroxetine for 3 additional weeks or placebo increase. Response rates were 75% in the placebo increased group and 74% in the 40 mg group. Licht & Qvitzau (Reference Licht and Qvitzau2002) investigated randomised dose escalation of sertraline (up to 200 mg/day) v. sertraline 100 mg/day (placebo increase) or mianserin addition in 295 outpatients non-responsive to sertraline 50 mg for 4 weeks and additionally increased to 100 mg for 2 more weeks. Response rates 5 weeks after randomisation were significantly lower in the dose-increase group (56%) than in the sertraline 100 mg group (70%) and the mianserin addition group (67%). Data on drop-out because of side-effects were not specified.

Strengths, flaws and other details of all selected studies are shown in Table 2. In summary, we mention several methodological problems we encountered: absence of placebo controls (Fava et al, Reference Fava, Cohen and Rosenbaum1992, Reference Fava, Rosenbaum and McGrath1994, Reference Fava, Alpert and Nierenberg2002), inclusion of minor depression (Reference Benkert, Szegedi and WetzelBenkert et al, 1997), insufficient data presentation (Reference Schweizer, Rickels and AmsterdamSchweizer et al, 1990; Reference Fava, Rosenbaum and McGrathFava et al, 1994), insufficient power (Schweizer et al, Reference Schweizer, Rickels and Amsterdam1990, Reference Schweizer, Rynn and Mandos2001; Fava et al, Reference Fava, Cohen and Rosenbaum1992, Reference Fava, Rosenbaum and McGrath1994, Reference Fava, Alpert and Nierenberg2002; Reference Benkert, Szegedi and WetzelBenkert et al, 1997), uncertainty about masking (Reference Dornseif, Dunlop and PotvinDornseif et al, 1989; Reference Schweizer, Rynn and MandosSchweizer et al, 2001), earlier dose escalation before the randomisation (Reference Licht and QvitzauLicht & Qvitzau, 2002), inadequate pooling of heterogeneous data and problems with conversion to dose equivalents (Reference Bollini, Pampallona and TibaldiBollini et al, 1999; Reference Baker, Tweedie and DuvalBaker et al, 2003). None of the studies provided information about the method of dose escalation or described the early drop-out rates because of dose escalation.

Evidence for dose escalation?

From four of the eight dose-escalation studies it appeared that dose increments before 4 weeks were not effective (level of evidence: A2) (Reference Dornseif, Dunlop and PotvinDornseif et al, 1989; Schweizer et al, Reference Schweizer, Rickels and Amsterdam1990, Reference Schweizer, Rynn and Mandos2001; Reference Benkert, Szegedi and WetzelBenkert et al, 1997; Reference Bollini, Pampallona and TibaldiBollini et al, 1999; Reference Corruble and GuelfiCorruble & Guelfi, 2000; Reference Baker, Tweedie and DuvalBaker et al, 2003). However, in the meta-analysis of some of these studies by Baker et al, a potential dose–response relationship was found for dose escalation if participants who dropped out because of side-effects were excluded from the analysis (a so-called dose-tolerant sample) (Reference Baker, Tweedie and DuvalBaker et al, 2003). Baker & Woods (Reference Baker and Woods2003) proposed that differential drop-out because of side-effects in the dose-escalation group (compared with placebo increase) conferred a substantial (negative) bias to the potential dose–response relationship. They argued that by applying a last-observation-carried-forward approach (often used in the original studies), more participants dropping out early (because of side-effects) in the high-dose groups would unequally increase average severity scores and decrease response rates compared with the lower-dose (or placebo) groups. This methodological problem could be overcome by analysing only dose-tolerant participants (those not dropping out because of side-effects).

In the well-performed study with sertraline by Licht & Qvitzau (Reference Licht and Qvitzau2002) (not included in the three reviews), dose escalation after 6 weeks was found to be less effective than continuation of the standard dose, or augmentation with mianserin (level of evidence: A2). After 8 weeks of treatment, increased dosages of fluoxetine were more effective than augmentation with lithium or desipramine (Fava et al, Reference Fava, Rosenbaum and McGrath1994, Reference Fava, Alpert and Nierenberg2002), although in the latter study this was not significant (level of evidence: B). In these studies no placebo dose escalation was performed. Both studies showed a non-significant trend of increased efficacy of dose escalation compared with augmentation (lithium or desipramine), particularly for partial responders (level of evidence: B).

Across all studies, higher doses were related to increased drop-out rates, which were associated with more side-effects in some studies (level of evidence: A2) (Reference Bollini, Pampallona and TibaldiBollini et al, 1999). It appeared that the occurrence of side-effects did not increase equally when dosages were gradually escalated for initial non-responders, compared with fixed-dose trials. However, this could not be compared straightforwardly between the studies, and was not investigated specifically.

Additional concerns for clinicians

We identified no evidence to recommend how dose increase should be practised. Also, the maximum dosage to be achieved was not investigated well.

DISCUSSION

Our systematic review provided eight studies about dose escalation of SSRIs. Only one of these studies approached our rather stringent criteria (Reference Licht and QvitzauLicht & Qvitzau, 2002). We found no evidence of increased efficacy by dose escalation within the first 4 weeks. Dose escalation after 6 weeks appeared less effective than continuing the same dose. We found some, but limited, evidence for efficacy of dose escalation after 8 weeks, particularly in partial responders. This effect was seen within 4 weeks after dose escalation. Irrespective of efficacy, dose escalation unequivocally increased side-effects, but effects on dropout rates because of side-effects were less straightforward. Thus, in the absence of methodologically well-designed studies we can neither unequivocally state that dose escalation is useful nor discard it as useless.

These findings may challenge the current beliefs and recommendations about dose escalation as it is generally practised (Reference Byrne and RothschildByrne & Rothschild, 1997; Reference Shergill and KatonaShergill & Katona, 1997; Reference Fredman, Fava and KienkeFredman et al, 2000; Reference Mischoulon, Nierenberg and KizilbashMischoulon et al, 2000). Contrary to this challenge, many patients who have only partially responded are too often treated with long-term obviously insufficient treatments (e.g. standard doses of SSRIs). For these patients, one could argue that it is better to try dose escalation than to continue inadequate treatment. Presumably, in the absence of clear guidance from trial data, clinicians do not have many alternatives for non-responders or partial responders, and clinicians all have their case histories of improvement after dose escalation. A more sophisticated question must therefore also be asked; i.e. which subgroup of patients will benefit from dose escalation?

So far, only the NICE guideline displayed some reserve in the general recommendation about dose escalation (National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2004). The British Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency's Committee on Safety of Medicines examined the available evidence for dose escalation as provided by pharmaceutical companies, and recommended the lowest efficacious dose (Reference Weller, Ashby and BrookWeller et al, 2004). From this report it was unclear which studies were taken as evidence. Three previous reviews concerning higher doses of anti-depressants were published (Reference Bollini, Pampallona and TibaldiBollini et al, 1999; Reference Corruble and GuelfiCorruble & Guelfi, 2000; Reference Baker, Tweedie and DuvalBaker et al, 2003), the methodological shortcomings of which have already been mentioned. The findings in these reviews previously challenged the belief of a dose–response relationship, but Baker et al proposed a potential dose–response relationship, according to their dose-tolerance analysis. All reports summarised studies performed until 1997; thereafter, the study by Licht & Qvitzau (Reference Licht and Qvitzau2002) further challenged the efficacy of dose escalation.

Limitations of the identified studies

Four major issues of concern in the eight identified studies should be mentioned. First, the methodological quality of these studies varied between poor and good according to our classification. We summarised these methodological problems in the Results section and Table 2.

Second, and more in general, all dose-escalation studies, except the studies of Fava and colleagues, which lacked a placebo control (Fava et al, Reference Fava, Cohen and Rosenbaum1992, Reference Fava, Rosenbaum and McGrath1994, Reference Fava, Alpert and Nierenberg2002), suffered a methodological problem in the timing of dose escalation (Reference Baker and WoodsBaker & Woods, 2003). Even the most robust study, by Licht & Qvitzau (Reference Licht and Qvitzau2002), hampered its own design by a non-randomised dose increase 2 weeks before randomisation. This problem might explain the high placebo response rates in some of the dose-escalation studies (up to 75%).

Third, in most studies no data were provided on the selective drop-out, nor the schedule of dose increments (Reference Baker and WoodsBaker & Woods, 2003). The possibility that patients randomised to true dose escalation might drop out more frequently and earlier after randomisation (with associated high severity scores), compared with those receiving placebo, might have biased the intention-to-treat analyses in which last observations are usually carried forward to study end-points. This happens in particular when dose escalation is performed rapidly. The analysis of a dose-tolerant sample in such studies would indeed provide additional information, but these data were not provided.

Fourth, in the selected trials, it was mostly response that was used as primary outcome, whereas currently remission of depression is the clinical aim of treatment (Reference Nierenberg and DeCeccoNierenberg & DeCecco, 2001). If dose escalation would be effective, the question remains whether dose escalation will also further improve initial responders that were non-remitters. So far only Schweizer et al addressed this topic, with equivocal effects of dose escalation (Reference Schweizer, Rynn and MandosSchweizer et al, 2001).

Possible explanations for a dose–response relationship

A possible explanation of the clinical observation that response might occur after dose escalation is initial lower levels of the drug in the bloodstream. This may be related to increased metabolism because of genetic polymorphisms of the CYP enzyme system (Reference Bertilsson, Aberg-Wistedt and GustafssonBertilsson et al, 1985; Reference Steimer, Muller and LeuchtSteimer et al, 2001; Reference Charlier, Broly and LhermitteCharlier et al, 2003; Reference BrosenBrosen, 2004). The incidence of increased metabolism by (multi-)duplicated genes of CYP 2D6 varies between 1–2% in White populations in Sweden, 3.6% in Germany and 7–10% in Spain and Sicily, and also varies between ethnic groups (e.g. 29% in Black Ethiopians) (Reference Bertilsson, Dahl and DalenBertilsson et al, 2002). A few studies showed equivocal evidence for the involvement of CYP polymorphisms (responsible for rapid metabolism) as an explanation of non-response to a standard dose of SSRIs (Bertilsson et al, Reference Bertilsson, Dahl and Tybring1997, Reference Bertilsson, Dahl and Dalen2002; Reference Steimer, Muller and LeuchtSteimer et al, 2001; Reference BrosenBrosen, 2004; Reference Kawanishi, Lundgren and AgrenKawanishi et al, 2004). However, a clear relationship between blood levels of SSRIs and response was never found (Reference Beasley, Bosomworth and WernickeBeasley et al, 1990; Reference Norman, Gupta and BurrowsNorman et al, 1993; Reference BaumannBaumann, 1996; Reference Amsterdam, Fawcett and QuitkinAmsterdam et al, 1997; Reference Bourdeaux, Pannetier and YounosBourdeaux et al, 1998; Reference DeVaneDeVane, 1998). Perhaps genetic variability of the central target of these drugs, the serotonin reuptake transporter, may be responsible more directly for the effects of SSRIs (Reference Hahn and BlakelyHahn & Blakely, 2002; Reference Smits, Smits and SchoutenSmits et al, 2004).

From in-vitro and ex-vivo studies it appears that, at higher doses, selective anti-depressants such as SSRIs may become dual-action agents that, like noradrenaline, also affect other monoamine systems (Reference Owens, Morgan and PlottOwens et al, 1997; Reference Gorman and SullivanGorman & Sullivan, 2000; Reference Gilmor, Owens and NemeroffGilmor et al, 2002). From the current data on dose escalation in SSRIs, this theoretical hypothesis can neither be falsified nor proven. In addition, we are unaware of an acceptable method to test whether specific sites of action are responsible for the observed treatment effects.

Limitations of the review

No meta-analysis was performed because the differences in timing of dose escalation between the identified studies introduced substantial heterogeneity. An extension of the meta-regression approach as performed by Baker et al (Reference Baker, Tweedie and Duval2003) was considered inappropriate for addressing this problem, as the number of studies gave insufficient power; moreover, gender, age, outcome definition and type of SSRI ideally should be included in such a model.

The grading system for studies does not represent the appraised methodological dimensions of evidence. This improved the applicability of the results for busy clinicians, but reduced their strength.

Finally, patients studied in trials are generally selected populations, reducing external validity for clinical practice. All identified studies excluded psychotic depression, bipolar depression, depression in children or adolescents and depressive disorder with severe psychiatric and somatic comorbidity.

Future dose-escalation studies

For future dose-escalation trials, methodological issues should be considered. First, for optimal contrast in the study, an appropriate group of non-responders should be selected by postponing randomisation and refraining from (additional) interventions before dose escalation is applied. The minimum period that can be reconciled with recommendations in current guidelines and that is acceptable for clinical practice is 6 weeks. Second, studies should have enough power to detect significant differences. This implies a large sample to start with, as approximately 50% of patients will show a response in the first 6 weeks. Third, the method of dose escalation should be described and applied in such a way that few patients drop out. Fourth, adequate results should be presented: response and remission rates in intention-to-treat analyses and for the group that could be described as dose tolerant. Fifth, efficacy should be tested in predefined subgroups (e.g. partial responders at week 6). Sixth, genetic sampling (e.g. CYP and SERT polymorphisms) and plasma SSRI-level sampling would be interesting in the further examination of potential explanations for the clinically observed efficacy of dose escalation, and to identify potential prognostic variables.

Acknowledgements

This systematic review was realised by a grant for the development of a local evidence-based clinical practice guideline (No. SFA.07.012) from the Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. This guideline considering strategies for non-response to a standard dose of a first SSRI is available from H.R. on request.

Footnotes

Declaration of interest

None.

References

Altamura, A. C., Montgomery, S. A. & Wernicke, J. F. (1988) The evidence for 20 mg a day of fluoxetine as the optimal dose in the treatment of depression. British Journal of Psychiatry, 153 (suppl. 3), 109112.Google Scholar
American Psychiatric Association (2000) Practice guideline for the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder (revision). American Journal of Psychiatry, 157, 145.Google Scholar
Amsterdam, J. D., Fawcett, J., Quitkin, F. M., et al (1997) Fluoxetine and norfluoxetine plasma concentrations in major depression: a multicenter study. American Journal of Psychiatry, 154, 963969.Google ScholarPubMed
Anderson, I. M. (2003) Drug treatment of depression: reflections on the evidence. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 9, 1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, I. M., Nutt, D. J. & Deakin, J. F. W. (2000) Evidence-based guidelines for treating depressive disorders with antidepressants: a revision of the 1993 British Association for Psychopharmacology guidelines. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 14, 320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baker, C. B. & Woods, S. W. (2003) Is there a SSRI dose-response in treating major depression? The case for re-analysis of current data and for enhancing future study design. Depression and Anxiety, 17, 1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, C. B., Tweedie, R., Duval, S., et al (2003) Evidence that the SSRI dose-response in treating major depression should be reassessed: a meta-analysis. Depression and Anxiety, 17, 19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baumann, P. (1996) Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationship of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Clinical Pharmacokinetics, 31, 444469.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beasley, C. M. Jr, Bosomworth, J. C. & Wernicke, J. F. (1990) Fluoxetine: relationships among dose, response, adverse events, and plasma concentrations in the treatment of depression. Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 26, 1824.Google ScholarPubMed
Benkert, O., Szegedi, A., Wetzel, H., et al (1997) Dose escalation v. continued doses of paroxetine and maprotiline: a prospective study in depressed outpatients with inadequate treatment response. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 95, 288296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertilsson, L., Aberg-Wistedt, A., Gustafsson, L. L., et al (1985) Extremely rapid hydroxylation of debrisoquine: a case report with implication for treatment with nortriptyline and other tricyclic antidepressants. Therapeutics and Drug Monitoring, 7, 478480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bertilsson, L., Dahl, M. L. & Tybring, G. (1997) Pharmacogenetics of antidepressants: clinical aspects. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 391, 1421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bertilsson, L., Dahl, M. L., Dalen, P., et al (2002) Molecular genetics of CYP2D6: clinical relevance with focus on psychotropic drugs. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 53, 111122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bollini, P., Pampallona, S., Tibaldi, G., et al (1999) Effectiveness of antidepressants. Meta-analysis of dose-effect relationships in randomised clinical trials. British Journal of Psychiatry, 174, 297303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bourdeaux, R., Pannetier, P., Younos, C., et al (1998) Fluoxetine: relationships among plasma concentrations and therapeutic effects in the treatment of 32 patients with major depressive disorder at 20 mg/day. Encéphale, 24, 5761.Google Scholar
Brosen, K. (2004) Some aspects of genetic polymorphism in the biotransformation of antidepressants. Therapie, 59, 512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Byrne, S. & Rothschild, A. J. (1997) Psychiatrists’ responses to failure of maintenance therapy with antidepressants. Psychiatric Services, 48, 835837.Google ScholarPubMed
Charlier, C., Broly, F., Lhermitte, M., et al (2003) Polymorphisms in the CYP 2D6 gene: association with plasma concentrations of fluoxetine and paroxetine. Therapeutic Drug Monitoring, 25, 738742.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corruble, E. & Guelfi, J. D. (2000) Does increasing dose improve efficacy in patients with poor antidepressant response? A review. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 101, 343348.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crismon, M. L., Trivedi, M., Pigott, T. A., et al (1999) The Texas medication algorithm project. Report of the Texas consensus conference panel on medication treatment of major depressive disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 60, 142156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Depression Guideline Panel (1993a) Depression in Primary Care. Vol. 1. Detection and Diagnosis. Clinical Practice Guideline, No. 5. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research.Google Scholar
Depression Guideline Panel (1993b) Depression in Primary Care. Vol. 2. Treatment of Major Depression. Clinical Practice Guideline, No. 5. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research.Google Scholar
DeVane, C. L. (1998) Translational pharmacokinetics: current issues with newer antidepressants. Depression and Anxiety, 8, 6470.3.0.CO;2-S>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dornseif, B. E., Dunlop, S. R., Potvin, J. H., et al (1989) Effect of dose escalation after low-dose fluoxetine therapy. Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 25, 7179.Google ScholarPubMed
Dunner, D. L. & Dunbar, G. C. (1992) Optimal dose regimen for paroxetine. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 53, 2126.Google ScholarPubMed
Fava, M. (2000a) New approaches to the treatment of refractory depression. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 61, 2632.Google Scholar
Fava, M. (2000b) Management of nonresponse and intolerance: switching strategies. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 61, 1012.Google Scholar
Fava, M., Cohen, L., Rosenbaum, J. F., et al (1992) High-dose fluoxetine in the treatment of depressed patients not responsive to a standard dose of fluoxetine. Journal of Affective Disorders, 25, 229234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fava, M., Rosenbaum, J. F., McGrath, P. J., et al (1994) Lithium and tricyclic augmentation of fluoxetine treatment for resistant major depression: a double-blind, controlled study. American Journal of Psychiatry, 151, 13721374.Google ScholarPubMed
Fava, M., Alpert, J., Nierenberg, A., et al (2002) Double-blind study of high-dose fluoxetine versus lithium or desipramine augmentation of fluoxetine in partial responders and non-responders to fluoxetine. Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology, 22, 379387.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fredman, S. J., Fava, M., Kienke, A. S., et al (2000) Partial response, nonresponse, and relapse with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in major depression: a survey of current next-step practices. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 61, 403408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilmor, M. L., Owens, M. J. & Nemeroff, C. B. (2002) Inhibition of norepinephrine uptake in patients with major depression treated with paroxetine. American Journal of Psychiatry, 159, 17021710.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gorman, J. M. & Sullivan, G. (2000) Noradrenergic approaches to antidepressant therapy. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 61, 1316.Google ScholarPubMed
Hahn, M. K. & Blakely, R. D. (2002) Monoamine transporter gene structure and polymorphisms in relation to psychiatric and other complex disorders. Pharmacogenomics Journal, 2, 217235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hirschfeld, R. M., Montgomery, S. A., Aguglia, E., et al (2002) Partial response and nonresponse to antidepressant therapy: current approaches and treatment options. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 63, 826837.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kawanishi, C., Lundgren, S., Agren, H., et al (2004) Increased incidence of CYP2D6 gene duplication in patients with persistent mood disorders: ultrarapid metabolism of antidepressants as a cause of nonresponse. A pilot study. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 59, 803807.Google ScholarPubMed
Kennedy, N. & McDonough, M. (2003) Pharmacological management of treatment resistant depression: a clinical review. Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine, 20, 1823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, S. H., Lam, R. W., Cohen, N. L., et al (2001) Clinical guidelines for the treatment of depressive disorders. IV. Medications and other biological treatments. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 46, 3858.Google ScholarPubMed
Kennedy, S., McIntyre, R., Fallu, A., et al (2002) Pharmacotherapy to sustain the fully remitted state. Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience, 27, 269280.Google ScholarPubMed
Kroenke, K., West, S. L., Swindle, R., et al (2001) Similar effectiveness of paroxetine, fluoxetine, and sertraline in primary care: a randomized trial. JAMA, 286, 29472955.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kwaliteitsinstituut voor de Gezondheidszorg CBO (2000) Richtlijnontwikkeling binnen het Kwaliteitsinstituut voor de Gezondheidszorg CBO. Handleiding voor werkgroepleden. Utrecht: CBO.Google Scholar
Licht, R. W. & Qvitzau, S. (2002) Treatment strategies in patients with major depression not responding to first-line sertraline treatment: a randomised study of extended duration of treatment, dose increase or mianserin augmentation. Psychopharmacology, 161, 143151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marangell, L. B. (2001) Switching antidepressants for treatment-resistant major depression. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 62, 1217.Google ScholarPubMed
McIntyre, R. S., Muller, A., Mancini, D. A., et al (2003) What to do if an initial antidepressant fails? Canadian Family Physician, 49, 449457.Google Scholar
Mischoulon, D. (1997) Why do antidepressants take so long to work? American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology Progress Notes, 8, 911.Google Scholar
Mischoulon, D., Nierenberg, A. A., Kizilbash, L., et al (2000) Strategies for managing depression refractory to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor treatment: a survey of clinicians. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 45, 476481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moncrieff, J., Churchill, R., Drummond, D. C., et al (2001) Development of a quality assessment instrument for trials of treatments for depression and neurosis. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatry Research, 10, 126133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, S. A., Pedersen, V., Tanghoj, P., et al (1994) The optimal dosing regimen for citalopram-a meta-analysis of nine placebo-controlled studies. International Clinical Psychopharmacololgy, 9, 3540.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mulrow, C. D., Williams, J. W., Trivedi, M., et al (1999) Treatment of depression – newer pharmacotherapies. Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 34, 409795.Google Scholar
Munoz, S. R. & Bangdiwala, S. I. (1997) Interpretation of Kappa and B statistics measures of agreement. Journal of Applied Statistics, 24, 105111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, J. C. (1998) Treatment of antidepressant non-responders: augmentation or switch? Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 59, 3541.Google ScholarPubMed
Nelson, J. C. (2003) Managing treatment-resistant major depression. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 64, 512.Google ScholarPubMed
National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2004) Clinical Guideline 23. Depression: Management of Depression in Primary and Secondary Care, pp. 163. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence.Google Scholar
Nierenberg, A. A. & DeCecco, L. M. (2001) Definitions of antidepressant treatment response, remission, nonresponse, partial response, and other relevant outcomes: a focus on treatment-resistant depression. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 62, 59.Google ScholarPubMed
Norman, T. R., Gupta, R. K., Burrows, G. D., et al (1993) Relationship between antidepressant response and plasma concentrations of fluoxetine and norfluoxetine. International Clinical Psychopharmacology, 8, 2529.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Reardon, J. P., Brunswick, D. J. & Amsterdam, J. D. (2000) Treatment-resistant depression in the age of serotonin: evolving strategies. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 13, 9398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owens, M. J., Morgan, W. N., Plott, S. J., et al (1997) Neurotransmitter receptor and transporter binding profile of antidepressants and their metabolites. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapies, 283, 13051322.Google ScholarPubMed
Quitkin, F. M., Petkova, E., McGrath, P. J., et al (2003) When should a trial of fluoxetine for major depression be declared failed? American Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 734740.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rush, A. J., Crismon, M. L., Toprac, M. G., et al (1998) Consensus guidelines in the treatment of major depressive disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 59, 7384.Google ScholarPubMed
Sackett, D. L., Straus, S. E., Richardson, W. S., et al (2000) Evidence-Based Medicine. How to Practice and Teach EBM (2nd edn). Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.Google Scholar
Schweizer, E., Rickels, K., Amsterdam, J. D., et al (1990) What constitutes an adequate antidepressant trial for fluoxetine? Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 51, 811.Google ScholarPubMed
Schweizer, E., Rynn, M., Mandos, L. A., et al (2001) The antidepressant effect of sertraline is not enhanced by dose titration: results from an out-patient clinical trial. International Clinical Psychopharmacology, 16, 137143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (2001) SIGN 50: A Guideline Developers’ Handbook. Edinburgh: SIGN.Google Scholar
Shergill, S. S. & Katona, C. L. (1997) Pharmacological choices after one antidepressant fails: a survey of UK psychiatrists. Journal of Affective Disorders, 43, 1925.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smits, K. M., Smits, L. J., Schouten, J. S., et al (2004) Influence of SERTPR and STin2 in the serotonin transporter gene on the effect of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in depression: a systematic review. Molecular Psychiatry, 9, 433441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steimer, W., Muller, B., Leucht, S., et al (2001) Pharmacogenetics: a new diagnostic tool in the management of antidepressive drug therapy. Clinica Chimica Acta, 308, 3341.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stimpson, N., Agrawal, N. & Lewis, G. (2002) Randomised controlled trials investigating pharmacological and psychological interventions for treatment-refractory depression. Systematic review. British Journal of Psychiatry, 181, 284294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thase, M. E., Rush, A. J. (1995) Treatment-resistant depression. In Psychopharmacology: The Fourth Generation of Progress (eds Bloom, F. E. & Kupfer, D. J.), pp. 10811097. New York: Raven Press.Google Scholar
Thase, M. E. & Rush, A. J. (1997) When at first you don't succeed: sequential strategies for antidepressant non-responders. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 58, 2329.Google Scholar
Tignol, J., Stoker, M. J. & Dunbar, G. C. (1992) Paroxetine in the treatment of melancholia and severe depression. International Clinical Psychopharmacology, 7, 9194.Google ScholarPubMed
Trivedi, M. H. & Kleiber, B. A. (2001) Algorithm for the treatment of chronic depression. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 62, 2229.Google ScholarPubMed
Weller, I. V., Ashby, D., Brook, R., et al (2004) Report of the CSM Expert Working Group on the Safety of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor Antidepressants. London: Medicinces and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 146
Total number of PDF views: 213 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 02nd January 2018 - 28th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Access
Hostname: page-component-898fc554b-8ljtz Total loading time: 0.526 Render date: 2021-01-28T06:48:04.944Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "1", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Dose escalation for insufficient response to standard-dose selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in major depressive disorder
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Dose escalation for insufficient response to standard-dose selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in major depressive disorder
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Dose escalation for insufficient response to standard-dose selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in major depressive disorder
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *