Objective: We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of buspirone as an adjunctive therapy for alleviating anxiety symptoms in patients with depressive disorders who are already taking antidepressants. Methods: This was an open-label prospective multicenter non-interventional observational study conducted over 12 weeks. We enrolled 180 patients diagnosed with depressive disorders according to DSM-5 criteria and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA) scores ≥ 18. Participants were already taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or serotoninnorepinephrine reuptake inhibitors and were prescribed adjunctive buspirone. Efficacy was assessed using HAMA, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD), Clinical Global Impression Scale-Improvement, Clinical Global Impression Scale-Severity, Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), and WHO-5 Well-Being Index. Results: The efficacy analysis included 161 patients. HAMA scores decreased significantly from 25.2 ± 6.7 at baseline to 15.4 ± 8.6 at 12 weeks (p ＜ 0.001), whereas HAMD scores decreased from 19.4 ± 4.6 to 12.7 ± 5.7 (p ＜ 0.001).WHO-5 and SDS scores showed significant improvements. The HAMA response rate was 39.1% and the remission rate was 13.7% at 12 weeks. Adverse drug reactions were reported in 3.7% of participants. Subgroup analyses showed no significant differences in treatment response based on buspirone dosage, baseline anxiety/depression severity, or benzodiazepine use. Conclusion Adjunctive buspirone therapy effectively improved anxiety symptoms in depressed patients taking antidepressants, regardless of baseline symptom severity or buspirone dosage. The treatment was well-tolerated with few adverse events. Future studies using a control group are needed.

Objective: We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of buspirone as an adjunctive therapy for alleviating anxiety symptoms in patients with depressive disorders who are already taking antidepressants. Methods: This was an open-label prospective multicenter non-interventional observational study conducted over 12 weeks. We enrolled 180 patients diagnosed with depressive disorders according to DSM-5 criteria and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA) scores ≥ 18. Participants were already taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or serotoninnorepinephrine reuptake inhibitors and were prescribed adjunctive buspirone. Efficacy was assessed using HAMA, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD), Clinical Global Impression Scale-Improvement, Clinical Global Impression Scale-Severity, Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), and WHO-5 Well-Being Index. Results: The efficacy analysis included 161 patients. HAMA scores decreased significantly from 25.2 ± 6.7 at baseline to 15.4 ± 8.6 at 12 weeks (p ＜ 0.001), whereas HAMD scores decreased from 19.4 ± 4.6 to 12.7 ± 5.7 (p ＜ 0.001).WHO-5 and SDS scores showed significant improvements. The HAMA response rate was 39.1% and the remission rate was 13.7% at 12 weeks. Adverse drug reactions were reported in 3.7% of participants. Subgroup analyses showed no significant differences in treatment response based on buspirone dosage, baseline anxiety/depression severity, or benzodiazepine use. Conclusion Adjunctive buspirone therapy effectively improved anxiety symptoms in depressed patients taking antidepressants, regardless of baseline symptom severity or buspirone dosage. The treatment was well-tolerated with few adverse events. Future studies using a control group are needed.

Objective: We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of buspirone as an adjunctive therapy for alleviating anxiety symptoms in patients with depressive disorders who are already taking antidepressants. Methods: This was an open-label prospective multicenter non-interventional observational study conducted over 12 weeks. We enrolled 180 patients diagnosed with depressive disorders according to DSM-5 criteria and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA) scores ≥ 18. Participants were already taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or serotoninnorepinephrine reuptake inhibitors and were prescribed adjunctive buspirone. Efficacy was assessed using HAMA, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD), Clinical Global Impression Scale-Improvement, Clinical Global Impression Scale-Severity, Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), and WHO-5 Well-Being Index. Results: The efficacy analysis included 161 patients. HAMA scores decreased significantly from 25.2 ± 6.7 at baseline to 15.4 ± 8.6 at 12 weeks (p ＜ 0.001), whereas HAMD scores decreased from 19.4 ± 4.6 to 12.7 ± 5.7 (p ＜ 0.001).WHO-5 and SDS scores showed significant improvements. The HAMA response rate was 39.1% and the remission rate was 13.7% at 12 weeks. Adverse drug reactions were reported in 3.7% of participants. Subgroup analyses showed no significant differences in treatment response based on buspirone dosage, baseline anxiety/depression severity, or benzodiazepine use. Conclusion Adjunctive buspirone therapy effectively improved anxiety symptoms in depressed patients taking antidepressants, regardless of baseline symptom severity or buspirone dosage. The treatment was well-tolerated with few adverse events. Future studies using a control group are needed.

Objective: We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of buspirone as an adjunctive therapy for alleviating anxiety symptoms in patients with depressive disorders who are already taking antidepressants. Methods: This was an open-label prospective multicenter non-interventional observational study conducted over 12 weeks. We enrolled 180 patients diagnosed with depressive disorders according to DSM-5 criteria and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA) scores ≥ 18. Participants were already taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or serotoninnorepinephrine reuptake inhibitors and were prescribed adjunctive buspirone. Efficacy was assessed using HAMA, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD), Clinical Global Impression Scale-Improvement, Clinical Global Impression Scale-Severity, Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), and WHO-5 Well-Being Index. Results: The efficacy analysis included 161 patients. HAMA scores decreased significantly from 25.2 ± 6.7 at baseline to 15.4 ± 8.6 at 12 weeks (p ＜ 0.001), whereas HAMD scores decreased from 19.4 ± 4.6 to 12.7 ± 5.7 (p ＜ 0.001).WHO-5 and SDS scores showed significant improvements. The HAMA response rate was 39.1% and the remission rate was 13.7% at 12 weeks. Adverse drug reactions were reported in 3.7% of participants. Subgroup analyses showed no significant differences in treatment response based on buspirone dosage, baseline anxiety/depression severity, or benzodiazepine use. Conclusion Adjunctive buspirone therapy effectively improved anxiety symptoms in depressed patients taking antidepressants, regardless of baseline symptom severity or buspirone dosage. The treatment was well-tolerated with few adverse events. Future studies using a control group are needed.

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: The Functioning Assessment Short Test (FAST) is a relatively specific test for bipolar disorders designed to assess the main functioning problems experienced by patients. This brief instrument includes 24 items assessing impairment or disability in 6 domains of functioning: autonomy, occupational functioning, cognitive functioning, financial issues, interpersonal relationships, and leisure time. It has already been translated into standardized versions in several languages. The aim of this study is to measure the validity and reliability of the Korean version of FAST (K-FAST). Methods: A total of 209 bipolar disorder patients were recruited from 14 centers in Korea. K-FAST, Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), Bipolar Depression Rating Scale (BDRS), Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) and the World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment Instrument Brief Form (WHOQOL-BREF) were administered, and psychometric analysis of the K-FAST was conducted. Results: The internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of the K-FAST was 0.95. Test-retest reliability analysis showed a strong correlation between the two measures assessed at a 1-week interval (ICC = 0.97; p ＜ 0.001). The K-FAST exhibited significant correlations with GAF (r = −0.771), WHOQOL-BREF (r = −0.326), YMRS (r = 0.509) and BDRS (r = 0.598). A strong negative correlation with GAF pointed to a reasonable degree of concurrent validity. Although the exploratory factor analysis showed four factors, the confirmatory factor analysis of questionnaires had a good fit for a six factors model (CFI = 0.925; TLI = 0.912; RMSEA = 0.078). Conclusion The K-FAST has good psychometric properties, good internal consistency, and can be applicable and acceptable to the Korean context.

The Korean Medication Algorithm Project for Depressive Disorder (KMAP-DD) first was published in 2002, and has been revised four times, in 2006, 2012, 2017, and 2021. In this review, we compared recommendations from the recently revised KMAP-DD 2021 to four global clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for depression published after 2010. The recommendations from the KMAP-DD 2021 were similar to those from other CPGs, although there were some differences. The KMAP-DD 2021 reflected social culture and the healthcare system in Korea and recent evidence about pharmacotherapy for depression, as did other recently published evidence-based guidelines. Despite some intrinsic limitations as an expert consensus-based guideline, the KMAP-DD 2021 can be helpful for Korean psychiatrists making decisions in clinical settings by complementing previously published evidence-based guidelines, especially for some clinical situations lacking evidence from rigorously designed clinical trials.

Objective: In the 19 years since the Korean College of Neuropsychopharmacology and the Korean Society for Affective Disorders developed the Korean Medication Algorithm Project for Depressive Disorder (KMAP-DD) in 2002, four revisions have been conducted. Methods: To increase survey efficiency in this revision, to cover the general clinical practice, and to compare the results with previous KMAP-DD series, the overall structure of the questionnaire was maintained. The six sections of the questionnaire were as follows: 1) pharmacological treatment strategies for major depressive disorder (MDD) with/without psychotic features; 2) pharmacological treatment strategies for persistent depressive disorder and other depressive disorder subtypes; 3) consensus for treatment-resistant depression; 4) the choice of an antidepressant in the context of safety, adverse effects, and comorbid physical illnesses; 5) treatment strategies for special populations (children/adolescents, elderly, and women); and 6) non-pharmacological biological therapies. Recommended first-, second-, and third-line strategies were derived statistically. Results: There has been little change in the four years since KMAP-DD 2017 due to the lack of newly introduced drug or treatment strategies. However, shortened waiting time between the initial and subsequent treatments, increased preference for atypical antipsychotics (AAPs), especially aripiprazole, and combination strategies with AAPs yield an active and somewhat aggressive treatment trend in Korea. Conclusion We expect KMAP-DD to provide clinicians with useful information about the specific strategies and medications appropriate for treating patients with MDD by bridging the gap between clinical real practice and the evidence-based world.

Objectives: The Korean Medication Algorithm Project for Depressive Disorder 2021 (KMAP-DD 2021) was made to update new researches and data. This study focused on non-pharmacological biological treatments. Methods: Ninety-seven psychiatrists with extensive clinical experience in the non-pharmacological biological treatment of depressive disorder were primary selected and a questionnaire was sent to each of them by mail, 65 of the 97 replied. Results: Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) was recommended as an initial strategy for major depressive disorder, severe depressive disorder with/without psychotic features with urgent suicidal risk, or a severe depressive episode with psychotic features in pregnant patients, for non-responders on pharmacotherapy for a moderate depressive episode, and as a second strategy for non-responders on antidepressant monotherapy or combination therapy combined with physical illness. For pregnant women with a severe episode of major depressive disorder, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) was preferred as a first-line strategy, and as a second strategy for non-responders on combined antipsychotic and antidepressant therapy and non-responders with comorbidity and physical illness. Complementary or novel treatment was not recommended as the first-line treatment strategy for depressive disorder, but transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), deep brain stimulation (DBS), light therapy, and omega-3 fatty acid nutritional therapy were second-line treatment strategies. Conclusion ECT and rTMS are initial strategies in specific clinical situations. Preferences for complementary or novel treatments such as tDCS, light therapy, and omega-3 fatty acid nutritional therapy have increased gradually, but in practice, their usages are still limited.

Objectives: To revise Korean Medication Algorithm Project for Depressive Disorder 2017 (KMAPDD 2017) guidelines by revising antidepressant choices based on their safety, adverse effects, comorbid physical illnesses, and the clinical definition of treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Methods: A 33-item questionnaire comprised of six parts was developed. A 65-expert consensus (65/97, 67.0%) was obtained on pharmacological treatment strategies regarding antidepressant choice with respect to safety, adverse effects, and comorbid physical illnesses. Multiple response sets were subjected to statistical analysis. Results: The results obtained showed that first-line pharmacotherapeutic strategies based on various clinical considerations were as follows: mirtazapine (for patients with increased suicidality, Gastrointestinal discomfort, and insomnia), bupropion (for patients with orthostatic hypotension, history of a safety accident, serotonin syndrome, sedation, sexual dysfunction, and weight gain), and escitalopram (for patients with anticholinergic side effects). For patients exhibiting comorbid conditions, duloxetine was the first line pharmacotherapeutic strategy for chronic pain, escitalopram was the first-line pharmacotherapeutic strategy for diabetes, hypertension, liver disease, Parkinson’s disease, renal disease, epilepsy, and thyroid disease, and sertraline was a first-line pharmacotherapeutic strategy for arrhythmia and cardiovascular disease. Conclusion Pharmacological treatment strategy of KMAP-DD 2021 is similar to that of KMAPDD 2017. Additional study is required to determine antidepressant choices for TRD and cancer patients with depression.