With our emphasis on treatment-refractory depression, one cannot help but think about recent media coverage and regulatory events surrounding antide-pressant therapy. The current debate about the safety of antidepressant therapy for children and adolescents stands out in particular.

Recently, a pediatrician attending a symposium at the University of Pennsylvania asked me whether I thought that primary care pediatricians should continue to prescribe antidepressants for children with depression and anxiety disorder. As is now well known, data have emerged suggesting a link between selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and an increase in suicidal ideation involving children and adolescents during clinical trials. It is important to bear in mind that no actual suicides occurred and that some of the “suicidal acts” were far from lethal and, arguably, not suicidal. Nevertheless, overall ~1 in 50 children on active medication—significantly more than those on placebo—had new-onset suicidal ideation or actions. The effect was most noticeable for venlafaxine and paroxetine and least noticeable for fluoxetine. As all of these drugs block the presynaptic reuptake of serotonin, it is not clear if the differences among these medications are real.

Despite the large number of depressed patients who do not respond to first-line antidepressants, the evidence base of alternate strategies is quite thin. In this article, a simple 5-stage system for categorizing treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is described and the evidence pertaining to the major strategies currently utilized is summarized using four grades, ranging from D (case reports only) to A (multiple positive placebo-controlled trials). It is concluded that the level of evidence supporting many of the contemporary strategies used for TRD (eg, combinations of antidepressants and augmentation with medications such as pindolol, buspirone, or modafinil) is scanty at best. Even the fundamental question concerning “to augment or to switch” is not answerable with available data. It is noted that the best-documented treatments (ie, lithium augmentation, switching to a monoamine oxidase inhibitor, and electroconvulsive therapy) are among the least utilized. This state of affairs will improve with completion of the studies of Systematic Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression, a large multicenter study of difficult-to-treat depression funded by the National Institute of Mental Health. There is a need for greater collaboration among academicians and organizations, such as the American Psychiatric Association, the National Institute of Mental Health, and the pharmaceutical industry, to ensure that sufficient research is conducted so that clinician's choices for patients with TRD can be guided by empirical evidence.

Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) represents a significant challenge for physicians. About one third of patients with major depressive disorder fail to experience sufficient symptom improvement despite adequate treatment. Despite this high occurrence of TRD there was no general consensus on diagnosis criteria for TRD until 1997 when researchers proposed a model of defining and staging TRD. In 1999, others defined operational criteria for the definition of TRD. Treatment of TRD is commonly separated into pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic methods. This review gives a short overview of these two methods. The nonpharmacologic methods include psychotherapy, electroconvulsive therapy, and vagus nerve stimulation. Pharmacologic methods include switching to another antidepressant monotherapy, and augmentation or combination with two or more antidepressants or other agents. This review especially focuses on the augmentation of the antidepressant therapy with atypical antipsychotics.

This article provides an overview of the etiology, epidemiology, and first-line treatment options for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). The subject of treatment-resistant and treatment-refractory OCD is the discussed, including a definition of these often-debated terms, and the latest treatment options delineated. This includes a review of the latest research concerning the pharmacological agents that have been studied as monotherapy or augmenting agents for the treatment of OCD, the use of experimental medications and procedures, treatment with reversible, minimally invasive procedure, such as vagal nerve stimulation and transcranial magnetic stimulation, invasive but the potentially reversible deep brain stimulation, and irreversible lesioning with ablative psychosurgery. A discussion of the role of psychotherapy in the treatment of OCD is also included.

This article examines the issue of atypical antipsychotics, glucose/insulin, and other metabolic derangements (ie, metabolic syndrome), including a general introduction to the health, concerns of our patients, a review of the literature, possible mechanisms of antipsychotic induced glucose dysregulation, monitoring approaches, and management and prevention of metabolic syndrome. Literature review leads to mechanism hypotheses and risk estimations, leading to guidelines for monitoring and treatment. The patient population suffers from a higher degree of baseline metabolic dysregulation resulting in cardiovascular disease through components of the metabolic syndrome, and this risk increases with administration of atypical antipsychotic medication at different rates, depending on both drug and patient risk factors. The growing knowledge of mechanisms behind drug induced glucose/insulin and other metabolic dysregulation, as well as advances in pharmacogenomics, will help refine drug selection and monitoring for adverse, life-threatening metabolic effects.

Background: Clinical trials of aripiprazole, a recentl Food and Drug Administration-approved atypical antipsychotic, included elderly patients, but more data are needed on the effects of aripiprazole in this population, especially those with comorbid medical illnesses.

Objective: To assess the response and safety of aripiprazole treatment in elderly patients with phrenia or schizoaffective disorder.

Method: Data was obtained by retrospective review of medical records. Aripiprazole was used to treat 10 elderly hospitalized patients between 62 and 85 years of age who manifested signs of psychosis related to schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. All patients had been treated previously with atypical and classic antipsychotics. Response was assessed by clinical observation of patients' behavior and Clinical Global Impression Scale assigned retrospectively.

Results: Seven patients responded to treatment, two did not respond, and one had a partial response. The mean Clinical Global Impression Scale scores improved from 6 (severely ill) at baseline to 2.3 (much improved) at discharge. Treatment was discontinued in the two patients who did not respond. Of the seven patients who responded, four presented with positive symptoms and showed significant improvement while three presented with positive and negative symptoms and both symptoms improved significantly. Four patients had preexisting extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) and these symptoms decreased in three patients. In addition, two patients were able to discontinue antiparkinson medications. One patient who had severe tardive dyskinesia showed significant improvement in the dyskinetic symptoms. Four patients showed postural hypotension (without clinical symptoms) which resolved over time without treatment. Six patients showed a mean weight loss of 5.2 lbs. No adverse consequences occurred when divalproex sodium, carbamazepine, clonazepam or citalopram were given concurrently.

Conclusion: The reduction of both positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia and the lack of significant EPS, tardive dyskinesia, sedation, weight gain, anticholinergic effects, and QTc prolongation gives preliminary indication that aripiprazole may be a safe and effective medication for elderly patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.