Objective: This study tried to observe clinical benefit of aripiprazole augmentation (ARPA) treatment for major depressive disorder with anxious distress (MDDA) in routine practice. Methods: Retrospective chart review (n = 41) was conducted for clinical benefit of ARPA in patients with MDDA in routine practice. The primary endpoint was the mean change of Hamilton Anxiety Rating scale (HAMA) total scores from baseline to the endpoint. Additional secondary endpoints were also retrieved. Results: The changes of primary endpoint HAMA (t = 5.731, −4.6, p = 0.001), and secondary endpoints including Hamilton Depression Rating scale (HAMD, t = 4.284, −3.4, p ＜ 0.001), Clinical Global Impression-Clinical Benefit (CGI-CB, −0.9, t = 1.821, p = 0.026), and Clinical Global Impression Score-Severity (CGI-S, t = 3.556, −0.4, p ＜ 0.001) scores were also significantly improved during the study. No significant adverse events were observed. Conclusion This study has shown additional benefit of ARPA treatment for MDDA patients in routine practice. However, adequately-powered and well-controlled studies are necessary for generalization of the present findings.

Objective: This study tried to observe additional benefit of agomelatine (AGO) treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD) in routine practice. Methods: Retrospective chart review (n = 63) was conducted for additional benefit of combination with or switching to AGO in MDD patients without full remission. The primary endpoint was the mean change of Clinical Global Impression-Clinical Benefit (CGI-CB) total scores from baseline to the endpoint. Additional secondary endpoints were also collected. Results: The changes of CGI-CB (Z = −3.073, p = 0.002) and Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (Z = −3.483, p ＜ 0.001) total scores were significantly decreased from baseline to the endpoint, respectively. At the endpoint, the remission rate was 22.6% (n = 18) and 28.6% of patient had improvement in CGI-CB total scores at the endpoint.No significant adverse events were observed. Conclusion This study has shown additional benefit of AGO treatment as combination or switching agent for MDD patients without full remission in routine practice. However, adequately-powered and well-controlled studies are necessary for generalization of the present findings.

Objective: Anxious depression is associated with greater chronicity, higher severity of symptoms, more severe functional impairment, and poor response to drug treatment. However, evidence for first-choice antidepressants in patients with anxious depression is limited. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of escitalopram, desvenlafaxine, and vortioxetine in the acute treatment of anxious depression. Methods: Patients (n = 124) with major depressive disorder and high levels of anxiety were randomly assigned to an escitalopram treatment group (n = 42), desvenlafaxine treatment group (n = 40), or vortioxetine treatment group (n = 42) in a 6-week randomized rater-blinded head-to-head comparative trial. Changes in overall depressive and anxiety symptoms were assessed using the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA), respectively. Results: Patients demonstrated similar baseline-to-endpoint improvement in scores and similar response and remission rates for HAMD and HAMA. Analysis of the individual HAMD items revealed that desvenlafaxine significantly reduced anxiety somatic scores (p= 0.013) and hypochondriasis scores (p = 0.014) compared to escitalopram. With respect to the individual HAMA items, desvenlafaxine treatment showed significantly lower scores for respiratory symptoms (p = 0.013) than escitalopram treatment and cardiovascular symptoms (p = 0.005) than vortioxetine treatment. The treatments were well tolerated, with no significant differences. Conclusion Our results indicated no significant differences in the efficacy and tolerability of escitalopram, desvenlafaxine, and vortioxetine in this subtype of patients with anxious depression during the acute phase of treatment.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of escitalopram, vortioxetine, and desvenlafaxine for acute treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) with cognitive complaint (CC). Methods: A total of 129 patients with MDD who also complained of CC were randomized evenly to either escitalopram, vortioxetine, or desvenlafaxine group and underwent a multi-center, six-week, rater-blinded, and head-to-head comparative trial. Differences in depressive symptoms following treatment were measured using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) and the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Subjective cognitive function and the presence of adverse events were assessed. Results: The three antidepressant treatment groups did not show significant differences in the improvement of depressive symptoms as measured by HAMD and MADRS. Desvenlafaxine treatment was associated with a superior treatment response rate in depressive symptoms compared to vortioxetine or escitalopram treatment. However, no significant differences were found in the remission rate of depressive symptoms. The three antidepressant treatment groups did not show significant differences in the improvement of CC. Adverse profiles of each treatment group were tolerable, with no significant differences. Conclusion In acute antidepressant treatment for MDD with CC, escitalopram, vortioxetine, and desvenlafaxine presented similar efficacy in relief of depressive symptoms; however, desvenlafaxine was associated with a superior treatment. Further studies are needed to confirm these results by investigating the therapeutic efficacy and safety profile of long-term antidepressant treatment of MDD with CC (Clinical Trial Registry, http://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/en/: KCT0002173).

Antipsychotic monotherapy (APM) is considered best-acceptable treatment option regardless of antipsychotic class and formulation types for treating schizophrenia. However, antipsychotic polypharmacy (APP) has been also widely utilized in routine clinical practice. Despite APP has some clinical benefits it has also numerous pitfalls in relation with increased total number and doses of APs leading to adverse events as well as decrease of treatment adherence and persistence resulting in poor clinical outcomes. Recent introduction of long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) to the market has offered a chance for better medication adherence/persistence and also provided a simplification of treatment regime leading to more stabilized treatment for schizophrenia patients. When we cannot stay away from APP in the treatment of schizophrenia, clinicians need to find more proper APP regimens and thereby utilization of APP in efficient way should be a practical strategy to benefit schizophrenia patient in a real world treatment setting. With this regard, LAIs can be one of available APP regimen for treatment of schizophrenia in routine practice since their clinical utility and pharmacokinetic stability over oral APs have been well-elaborated today. However, when we have to commence LAIs as a part of APP with oral APs or other LAIs, every effort should be made before doing so whether or not validated and available treatment options or other clinical factors were not done or evaluated yet. Any treatment guidelines do not support APP regardless of the formulation of APP regimen or address two or more LAIs for treatment of schizophrenia till today.

Objective: In a number of controlled clinical trials and naturalistic studies, aripiprazole once monthly (AOM) has been found to be effective and safe as acute and maintenance treatment options for schizophrenia. However, such clinical data have been presented in selected patient population (i.e., antipsychotic monotherapy, etc.), in particular, clinical information on switching to AOM from antipsychotic polypharmacy and/or other long acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) has been scarce till today. Methods: The study period was from the first switching day to AOM up to 12 months in patients with antipsychotic polypharmacy (APpoly)/LAIs (baseline, month 3, month 6, and month 12). Available demographics and clinical information were retrieved from electronic medical records (EMRs). Available scores of Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF), Clinical Global Impression-Clinical Benefit (CGI-CB), CGI-severity, Visual Analog Scale on Satisfaction-Patient/Health Professional (VAS-P/HP), and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Insigh (PANSS-I) scores were also taken from EMR. Proportional change of functional impairment before and after AOM was also captured. Results: Data of 18 patients were available. Most commonly used combined APs before AOM were aripiprazole, blonanserin, quetiapine, and risperidone. At least 2 APs (n = 2.4) were combined before AOM. Scores of GAF (10.7% increase), CGI-CB (46.2% decrease), VAS-P (47.8% increase), VAS-HP (40.8% increase), and PANSS-I (27.9% increase) (all p = 0.001) were significantly improved from baseline to month 12, respectively. Approximately 59% of patients improved individual functioning with different level (i.e., employment, back to school, etc.) after AOM treatment at month 12. Conclusion The present study have clearly shown the clinical benefit and utility of switching to AOM for treatment of patients with APpoly/LAIs in routine practice. Subsequent, adequately-powered, well-controlled clinical trials may be necessary to confirm our findings in near future.

The mainstay of schizophrenia treatment is pharmacological therapy using various antipsychotics including first- and second-generation antipsychotics which have different pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic property leading to differential presentation of adverse events (AEs) and treatment effects such as negative symptoms, cognitive symptoms and cormorbid symptoms. Major treatment guidelines suggest the use of antipsychotic monotherapy (APM) as a gold standard in the treatment of schizophrenia. However, the effects of APM is inadequate and less potent to achieve symptom remission as well as functional recovery in real practice which has been consistently reported in numerous controlled clinical trials, large practical trials, independent small studies and systematic reviews till today. Therefore antipsychotic polypharmacy (APP) regardless of the class of antipsychotics has been also commonly utilized for many reasons in real world practice. However, APP has also crucial pitfalls including increase of total psychotics including antipsychotics, high-doses of antipsychotics used, poor compliance, drug-drug interaction and risks for developing AEs, all of which are paradoxically related to poor clinical outcomes, whereas APP has also substantial advantages in reduction of re-hospitalization, severe psychopathology and targeted control of concurrent symptoms. Given currently limited therapeutic options, it is also important to properly utilize APP in order to maximize its clinical utility and minimize its risk for better treatment outcomes for patients with schizophrenia, based on risk/benefit with full understanding of pharmacological and clinical issues on APP. The present paper intends to address intriguing and important issues in the use of APP in real world practice.

Antipsychotic monotherapy (APM) is considered best-acceptable treatment option regardless of antipsychotic class and formulation types for treating schizophrenia. However, antipsychotic polypharmacy (APP) has been also widely utilized in routine clinical practice. Despite APP has some clinical benefits it has also numerous pitfalls in relation with increased total number and doses of APs leading to adverse events as well as decrease of treatment adherence and persistence resulting in poor clinical outcomes. Recent introduction of long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) to the market has offered a chance for better medication adherence/persistence and also provided a simplification of treatment regime leading to more stabilized treatment for schizophrenia patients. When we cannot stay away from APP in the treatment of schizophrenia, clinicians need to find more proper APP regimens and thereby utilization of APP in efficient way should be a practical strategy to benefit schizophrenia patient in a real world treatment setting. With this regard, LAIs can be one of available APP regimen for treatment of schizophrenia in routine practice since their clinical utility and pharmacokinetic stability over oral APs have been well-elaborated today. However, when we have to commence LAIs as a part of APP with oral APs or other LAIs, every effort should be made before doing so whether or not validated and available treatment options or other clinical factors were not done or evaluated yet. Any treatment guidelines do not support APP regardless of the formulation of APP regimen or address two or more LAIs for treatment of schizophrenia till today.

Objective: In a number of controlled clinical trials and naturalistic studies, aripiprazole once monthly (AOM) has been found to be effective and safe as acute and maintenance treatment options for schizophrenia. However, such clinical data have been presented in selected patient population (i.e., antipsychotic monotherapy, etc.), in particular, clinical information on switching to AOM from antipsychotic polypharmacy and/or other long acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) has been scarce till today. Methods: The study period was from the first switching day to AOM up to 12 months in patients with antipsychotic polypharmacy (APpoly)/LAIs (baseline, month 3, month 6, and month 12). Available demographics and clinical information were retrieved from electronic medical records (EMRs). Available scores of Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF), Clinical Global Impression-Clinical Benefit (CGI-CB), CGI-severity, Visual Analog Scale on Satisfaction-Patient/Health Professional (VAS-P/HP), and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Insigh (PANSS-I) scores were also taken from EMR. Proportional change of functional impairment before and after AOM was also captured. Results: Data of 18 patients were available. Most commonly used combined APs before AOM were aripiprazole, blonanserin, quetiapine, and risperidone. At least 2 APs (n = 2.4) were combined before AOM. Scores of GAF (10.7% increase), CGI-CB (46.2% decrease), VAS-P (47.8% increase), VAS-HP (40.8% increase), and PANSS-I (27.9% increase) (all p = 0.001) were significantly improved from baseline to month 12, respectively. Approximately 59% of patients improved individual functioning with different level (i.e., employment, back to school, etc.) after AOM treatment at month 12. Conclusion The present study have clearly shown the clinical benefit and utility of switching to AOM for treatment of patients with APpoly/LAIs in routine practice. Subsequent, adequately-powered, well-controlled clinical trials may be necessary to confirm our findings in near future.