Evidence-based Synthesis Program Department of Veterans Affairs

Health Services Research & Development Service Evidence-based Synthesis Program 

Evidence Synthesis for Determining 

the Efficacy of Psychotherapy for 

Treatment Resistant Depression

Department of Veterans Affairs

Health Services Research & Development Service

October 2009

Investigators:

Ranak B. Trivedi, PhD

Core Investigator, Seattle VA HSR&D Center of Excellence

Research Asst. Professor, University of Washington Dept. of 

Health Services, School of Public Health

Seattle, WA

Jason A. Nieuwsma, PhD

MIRECC Postdoctoral Fellow in Psychology

Durham VA Medical Center

Durham, NC

John W. Williams Jr., MD, MHS

Professor of Medicine and Psychiatry, Durham VA Medical 

Center and Duke University

Director, Evidence-Based Practice Center

Durham, NC

Dana Baker, MS

Clinical Research Coordinator

Duke University

Durham, NC

Prepared for: 

Department of Veterans Affairs

Veterans Health Administration

Health Services Research

& Development Service

Washington, DC 20420 

Prepared by:

Durham Veterans Affairs Medical 

Center/Duke Evidence-Based 

Practice Center

Durham, NC
ii

Evidence Synthesis for Determining the Efficacy of 

Psychotherapy for Treatment Resistant Depression Evidence-based Synthesis Program

PREFACE

VA’s Health Services Research and Development Service (HSR&D) works to improve the cost, 

quality, and outcomes of health care for our nation’s veterans. Collaborating with VA leaders, 

managers, and policy makers, HSR&D focuses on important health care topics that are likely to 

have significant impact on quality improvement efforts. One significant collaborative effort is 

HSR&D’s Evidence-based Synthesis Program (ESP). Through this program, HSR&D provides 

timely and accurate evidence syntheses on targeted health care topics. These products will be disseminated broadly throughout VA and will: inform VA clinical policy, develop clinical practice 

guidelines, set directions for future research to address gaps in knowledge, identify the evidence 

to support VA performance measures, and rationalize drug formulary decisions.

HSR&D provided funding for the two Evidence Based Practice Centers (EPCs) supported by 

the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) that also had an active and publicly 

acknowledged VA affiliation—Southern California EPC and Portland, OR EPC—so they could 

develop evidence syntheses on requested topics for dissemination to VA policymakers. A planning committee with representation from HSR&D, Patient Care Services, Office of Quality and 

Performance, and the VISN Clinical Management Officers, has been established to identify 

priority topics and to ensure the quality of final reports. Comments on this evidence report are 

welcome and can be sent to Susan Schiffner, ESP Program Manager, at Susan.Schiffner@va.gov. 
iii

Evidence Synthesis for Determining the Efficacy of 

Psychotherapy for Treatment Resistant Depression Evidence-based Synthesis Program

This information is distributed solely for the purposes of pre-dissemination peer review. 

It has not been formally disseminated by the Department of Veterans Affairs. It does 

not represent and should not be construed to represent a Department of Veterans Affairs 

determination or policy.

Financial disclosure: No investigators have any affiliations or financial involvement (e.g., 

employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants 

or patents received or pending, or royalties) that conflict with material presented in the 

report.
iv

Evidence Synthesis for Determining the Efficacy of 

Psychotherapy for Treatment Resistant Depression Evidence-based Synthesis Program

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary

Background.....................................................................................................................................1

Methods ..........................................................................................................................................1

Results.............................................................................................................................................1

Summary.........................................................................................................................................3

Evidence Report

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................4

Background.....................................................................................................................................4

Methods

Topic Development.........................................................................................................................6

Search Strategy ...............................................................................................................................6

Study Selection ...............................................................................................................................6

Data Abstraction .............................................................................................................................7

Quality Assessment.........................................................................................................................7

Data Synthesis.................................................................................................................................7

Peer Review ....................................................................................................................................7

Results

Literature Flow... ...........................................................................................................................8

Sample Characteristics....................................................................................................................8

Study Design and Interventions....................................................................................................10

Study Results ................................................................................................................................12

Summary and Discussion

Summary and Discussion..............................................................................................................16

Limitations....................................................................................................................................17

Future Research ...................................................................................................................................18
v

Evidence Synthesis for Determining the Efficacy of 

Psychotherapy for Treatment Resistant Depression Evidence-based Synthesis Program

Tables

Table 1...............................................................................................................9 

Table 2.............................................................................................................10

Table 3.............................................................................................................11

Table 4...........................................................................................................................................15

Evidence tables of RCT’s ................................................................... ...................25

Figures

Figure 1.........................................................................................................................................21

Figure 2.........................................................................................................................................21

Appendix A. Search strategy ............................................................................................................19

Appendix B. Peer review.....................................................................................................................22

Appendix C. Evidence Tables ............................................................................................................25 

References ..............................................................................................................................................31
1

Evidence Synthesis for Determining the Efficacy of 

Psychotherapy for Treatment Resistant Depression Evidence-based Synthesis Program

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a prevalent disorder impacting an estimated 13% of the 

general population, and a third of the veteran population. Of the patients who experience at least 

one depressive episode, approximately 20% will experience chronic depression and 60-85% 

will experience recurrence and relapse. Antidepressant medications are the most commonly 

prescribed treatment modality for MDD and are often the first line of treatment in primary care 

settings. However, fewer than 50% of patients fully remit after adequate dosage of antidepressant 

treatment. Treatment options for these “treatment resistant” patients vary but typically involve 

using other psychoactive medications as augmentation (i.e., addition of another medication) 

or substitution treatment (i.e., switching medications). Less attention has been paid to using 

psychotherapy as an augmentation or substitution treatment for treatment resistant patients, 

despite psychotherapy being associated with clinical improvements in MDD comparable 

to those achieved with antidepressants. The current review will address the effectiveness of 

psychotherapeutic approaches as a second step treatment for MDD in patients who do not 

achieve remission after initial treatment with antidepressants. 

Question: In primary care patients with major depressive disorder who do not achieve remission 

with acute phase antidepressant treatment, is empirically based psychotherapy used as an 

augmentation or substitution treatment more effective than control for achieving remission?

METHODS

We searched PubMed from 1950-2009 using standard search terms. Titles, abstracts, and articles 

were reviewed in duplicate. Extant literature was initially screened for relevant systematic 

reviews. Following this, primary literature was screened for relevant randomized clinical trials 

comparing medications to psychotherapy in patients with major depressive disorder. Data were 

extracted in duplicate in articles that were included in this review. We evaluated study quality for 

the primary literature. All data were summarized in evidence tables and in narrative. 

RESULTS

We initially screened 41 systematic reviews, of which 29 were excluded at the title/abstract 

level and the remaining 12 were excluded after full-text review. For the primary literature, 333 

titles were screened, of which 290 were excluded at the title/abstract level and 31 were excluded 

after full-text review. The remaining 12 articles reflected five unique randomized clinical trials 

examining the effect of psychotherapy in patients who had shown resistance to antidepressant 

therapy. Because one of the trials had both “substitution with psychotherapy” and “augmentation 

with psychotherapy” arms, these were treated as two different studies, resulting in a total of six 

studies reviewed. A total of 567 patients were evaluated; none of these were recruited from VA 

clinics. Psychotherapy was examined as an augmentation to antidepressant medication in four 

studies and as a substitution treatment to replace medication in two studies. The STAR*D trial 

examined psychotherapy in both conditions. Three studies-including the two STAR*D treatment 
2

Evidence Synthesis for Determining the Efficacy of 

Psychotherapy for Treatment Resistant Depression Evidence-based Synthesis Program

arms- were rated as good quality, two studies were rated fair, and one was rated poor. The 

STAR*D trial used an equipoise stratified randomization design; the remaining four studies were 

true RCTs. Patients in the comparison groups were on medications in all studies.

A fair quality trial compared psychotherapy as augmentation treatment to medication by 

randomizing 24 patients to either a 16-session dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) group or to 

a wait list condition. Participants in the DBT group evidenced significantly more improvement 

than participants in the wait list condition, both on interviewer rated and self-report measures 

of depression severity. Interpretation is complicated by control participants being allowed to 

continue in individual therapy. 

Psychotherapy was also examined as an augmentation treatment to medication in a fair quality 

trial, in which 44 patients were randomized to either 12 sessions of cognitive therapy or to 

lithium augmentation. Participants in the lithium augmentation condition evidenced significantly 

more improvement than participants in the cognitive therapy condition on an interviewer rated 

measure of depression severity, but there were no between-group differences on a self-report 

measure of depression severity. One limitation was that patients must have partially responded to 

medication treatment to be eligible for inclusion. 

A moderate sized, good quality trial also used psychotherapy to augment antidepressant 

treatment. In this study, 158 patients were randomized to either 16 sessions of cognitive therapy 

(CT) or to clinical management with antidepressant medication. Participants in both conditions 

improved over time but there were no significant differences between the two treatment groups. 

The good quality STAR*D trial examined psychotherapy and medication as either augmentation 

or substitution treatments to initial treatment with citalopram. Sixteen sessions of CT were 

provided, although only a minority of enrolled participants completed all sessions. Only 

the portion of results germane to our question was considered for the review, resulting in a 

sample size of 304 participants. Patients were allowed to refuse randomization to treatment 

strategies that they found unacceptable, resulting in the two CT conditions having roughly half 

the number of participants as in the two medication conditions. While participants in all four 

conditions evidenced improvement over time, there were no significant differences between the 

conditions. However, participants who had citalopram augmented with another antidepressant 

did demonstrate quicker benefit than participants who had citalopram augmented with cognitive 

therapy. This study had excellent ecological validity given that patient preferences were taken 

into account prior to randomization. 

Finally, a poor quality study by Blackburn and Moore (1997), examined psychotherapy as a 

substitution treatment to replace antidepressant medication. There were 37 patients in this study 

who were randomized to 27 sessions of psychotherapy over two years or to clinical management 

with antidepressant medication. While participants in both conditions evidenced clinical 

improvement over time, there were no significant differences between the two conditions. 
3

Evidence Synthesis for Determining the Efficacy of 

Psychotherapy for Treatment Resistant Depression Evidence-based Synthesis Program

SUMMARY

In summary, two good quality, moderate-sized trials showed equal benefit from augmenting 

antidepressant medication with CT and from active medication management, one fair quality 

small study showed lithium augmentation to be more beneficial than CT, and one fair quality trial 

showed short-term benefit from augmentation through 16 sessions of DBT. A moderate-sized, 

good quality study and a small, poor quality study found equal benefit from substituting CT for 

antidepressant treatment and from continuing management of depression with medication. There 

was significant heterogeneity in study designs, sample sizes, and comparator groups, and most 

studies were underpowered to detect moderate effect sizes. We conclude that current trials do not 

support favoring psychotherapy over antidepressant medication for mid-life adults with treatment 

resistant MDD; however, psychotherapy appears to be an equally effective treatment compared 

to antidepressant medication and is therefore a reasonable treatment option for this demographic. 

Whether these results are directly applicable to Veterans is uncertain because most study samples 

were mid-life adults, more than 50% female, and medical and psychiatric co-morbidity was 

incompletely described. The limited number of studies, mixed effects and uncertain applicability 

to Veterans suggest a need for additional trials to adequately evaluate the potential treatment 

benefit of psychotherapy for treatment resistant depression.
4

Evidence Synthesis for Determining the Efficacy of 

Psychotherapy for Treatment Resistant Depression Evidence-based Synthesis Program

EVIDENCE REPORT

INTRODUCTION

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. 1 

The lifetime prevalence of MDD in the general population is estimated at 13%2, of which 

approximately 20% will experience chronic depression and 60-85% will experience recurrence 

and relapse.3 This number is even higher in the VA medical system, where an estimated one 

third of veterans experience MDD.4 MDD is associated with greater health care utilization, 

greater functional impairment, and increased mortality.2 In addition, subclinical symptoms of 

depression can reduce quality of life, worsen disability, and adversely affect co-existing chronic 

medical conditions.5-8 Both antidepressant medications and depression-specific psychotherapies 

are effective as first-line treatments for MDD. In primary care settings, most patients with 

MDD are treated with antidepressant medications, but a substantial proportion of patients fail to 

recover with this initial treatment. This evidence synthesis was requested to evaluate the efficacy 

of psychological treatments as step-2 treatment for patients with MDD who do not achieve 

remission with an initial course of antidepressant medication. 

BACKGROUND

Antidepressant medications are the most commonly prescribed treatment modality in MDD.9

The most recent American Psychiatric Association (APA) guidelines10 suggest the use of 

antidepressants for mild, moderate or severe depressive disorders, a position that has remained 

consistent in the more recent “guideline watch” by Fochtmann & Gelenberg (2008).11 The 

efficacy and effectiveness of antidepressant treatment in primary care have been demonstrated 

in multiple large scale studies and systematic reviews.12-16 Several classes and types of 

antidepressants exist which do not substantially differ in their efficacy or effectiveness for 

treating MDD.17 Therefore, primary care physicians have a wide array of antidepressant options 

that they may prescribe depending on suitability to patient, patient preference, affordability, side 

effect profile, and the targeted physiological system.17

In addition, a sizeable body of literature has examined the efficacy and effectiveness of 

psychotherapy as acute phase treatment for MDD, either as monotherapy or in combination 

with antidepressant treatment. Psychotherapy is a heterogeneous class of treatments in which 

the therapist utilizes interpersonal strategies with the intention of alleviating mental or emotion 

distress.18 Cognitive therapy (CT) is the most widely studied form of psychotherapy for depression, 

although many other psychotherapeutic modalities exist that are depression-specific, empirically 

validated, and accessible through referral or adoption by the primary care team. Recent reviews and 

meta-analyses of acute phase treatment for depression have shown that psychotherapy may be as 

effective as antidepressant treatment and more effective than usual care in treating mild, moderate, 

and severe MDD.19-23 When MDD is severe, chronic or recurrent, the combination of medication 

and psychotherapy as initial treatment appears to be indicated.17 Combination of psychotherapy 

with an antidepressant has demonstrated greater treatment gains, lower relapse rates, and increased 

adherence to treatment when compared to usual care or antidepressant monotherapy.24-27 Therefore, 

current evidence suggests that antidepressants and psychotherapy may both form effective first line 

treatments in patients with MDD, individually or in combination. 
5

Evidence Synthesis for Determining the Efficacy of 

Psychotherapy for Treatment Resistant Depression Evidence-based Synthesis Program

However, response to initial treatment for MDD remains poor even when treatment 

recommendations are rigorously followed.28, 29 Fewer than 50% of patients fully remit after 

an adequate trial of antidepressant medication or psychotherapy.30, 31 Patients who do not fully 

remit are often considered “treatment resistant” or “treatment refractory.” Treatment resistant 

depression (TRD) is typically defined as an inadequate response to at least one 6-week or 

longer trial of an antidepressant at an adequate dose.32 TRD does not include patients who did 

not adhere to initial treatment recommendations. Clinical factors associated with treatment 

resistant depression (TRD) include comorbid generalized anxiety and other Axis I disorders (e.g., 

phobias), early onset of MDD, previous suicide attempts, number of prior depressive episodes, 

older age, and unemployment.33-36 In primary care settings, these findings may help physicians a 

priori determine patients who may be most at-risk for TRD. 

Primary care physicians have several options when treating patients with TRD: augmenting 

treatment by adding another medication; switching to a different antidepressant; augmenting 

treatment through adding psychotherapy; and switching from medication to psychotherapy.37

However, studies of clinical practice suggest that medications are often the only active treatment 

provided by primary care providers as a second step treatment for MDD.17, 38 Several limitations 

to this approach should be noted. First, the addition of another antidepressant may increase 

the number and/or severity of side effects that patients experience. Side effects are known to 

reduce quality of life and increase the chances of non-adherence, interfering with the treatment 

of MDD.39 Second, focus on antidepressants may ignore the potential impact of psychosocial 

factors in TRD. For instance, cognitions and behaviors related to MDD may be interfering 

with the treatment regimen and may best be modified by skills training. This is especially true 

when patients are experiencing acute stressors (e.g., bereavement), where psychotherapy may 

improve patients’ long-term outcomes.23 Third, patients may simply not respond to antidepressant 

treatment or may not prefer taking medications. In all of these scenarios, the addition or 

substitution of psychotherapy may be a preferred alternative. 

In summary, psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy appear to be equally effective as initial 

approaches to treating MDD in primary care. However, approximately half of patients do not 

remit after initial treatment even when treatment regimens are rigorously followed. Switching to 

a different antidepressant or augmenting treatment by adding a second antidepressant medication 

are both common clinical practices that are recommended in current guidelines as second step 

treatment strategies. However, the addition or substitution of psychotherapy is not addressed as a 

step-2 treatment for MDD in published guidelines. 

Therefore, the focus of the current review is two-fold: 

To review literature examining the use of psychotherapy as a second line treatment for patients 

with depression who do not remit with initial antidepressant medication; and, 

To determine the applicability of these studies to VA patients treated in primary care settings. 

The purpose of this review was to generate guidelines that would help determine whether the use 

of psychotherapy, either as an augmentation or a switch strategy, would lead to better outcomes 

in patients who had not responded to initial adequate antidepressant treatment. 
6

Evidence Synthesis for Determining the Efficacy of 

Psychotherapy for Treatment Resistant Depression Evidence-based Synthesis Program

METHODS

Topic Development

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) uses quality improvement strategies, including 

clinical practice guidelines, clinical reminders in the electronic medical record, and performance 

measurement to improve care processes. For veterans with depression and other mental illnesses 

managed in primary care settings, the VHA has recently made major investments in integrated 

primary care-mental health programs. This project was nominated by Ira Katz, Deputy Chief, 

Patient Care Services for Mental Health, and Carla Cassidy and Joe Francis, Office of Quality 

and Performance, with input from a technical expert panel. The overall goal was to synthesize 

data on the efficacy of psychotherapy in patients who do not fully remit with adequate 

antidepressant treatment. 

Therefore, the key question was as follows: 

In primary care patients with major depressive disorder who do not achieve remission 

with acute phase antidepressant treatment, is empirically based psychotherapy used 

as an augmentation or substitution treatment more effective than control for achieving 

remission? 

For the purposes of this review, cognitive therapy (CT), interpersonal therapy (IPT), problemsolving therapy, dialectical behavior therapy (DBT), acceptance and commitment therapy 

(ACT), and mindfulness based cognitive therapy (MBCT) were considered as empirically based 

psychotherapies.

Search Strategy

We searched PubMed between 1950 and February 26, 2009 using standard search terms. 

Appendix A provides details of the search terms. Our strategy was twofold. First, we attempted 

to identify a good quality, relevant systematic review that would summarize the extant literature. 

If identified, our strategy would be to search for randomized clinical trials since the original 

review. No such systematic review was identified. Consequently, we searched PubMed for 

relevant randomized clinical trials (RCT). Titles, abstracts and full text articles were reviewed in 

duplicate. Data were extracted in duplicate from articles meeting all inclusion criteria. We then 

rated the overall quality of each study, assigned a grade, and summarized the data in narrative. 

Eligible articles were imported into an electronic reference database (EndNote® XI). 

Study Selection

Two trained researchers independently reviewed the titles and/or abstracts of citations identified 

through the PubMed literature search. If articles did not clearly meet the inclusion criteria, 

they were excluded at the title and abstract level. The remaining articles were identified for full 

text review, at which stage those that did not meet inclusion criteria were excluded. In case of 

disagreement, the two reviewers met to identify and resolve the disagreement. To be eligible, the 

articles had to be published in English, and include: 
7

Evidence Synthesis for Determining the Efficacy of 

Psychotherapy for Treatment Resistant Depression Evidence-based Synthesis Program

• English-speaking adult outpatients from general medical settings.

• Randomized clinical trial involving at least one of the following psychotherapy modalities: 

cognitive behavior therapy (CBT), interpersonal therapy (IPT), problem-solving therapy, 

dialectical behavior therapy (DBT), acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), or 

mindfulness based cognitive therapy (MBCT).

• Patients with resistant MDD, defined as a sample consisting of at least 80% with either no 

remission or partial remission after being treated with adequate dose of an antidepressant for 

at least six weeks.

• Articles were excluded if patients were receiving psychotherapy at the time of recruitment, 

and/or if patients had comorbid psychiatric conditions that required specialty psychiatric 

care. These included, but were not limited to, active suicidal or parasuicidal ideation, severe 

substance abuse, or borderline personality disorder.

Data Abstraction

The following data were abstracted on the included studies: definition of persistence; type 

of psychotherapy; type of comparison group; setting (primary care/mental health clinic); VA 

(Yes/No); sample size; study-specific inclusion/exclusion criteria; age/sex/race of sample; 

indices of MDD severity (duration of current episode; number of prior episodes; number of 

hospitalizations; number of suicide attempts); data on interviewer-rated depression severity (if 

applicable); data on self-reported depression severity (if applicable); duration of follow-up. All 

data were abstracted by one reviewer with oversight being provided by the other reviewer. All 

disagreements were resolved using discussion and consensus. 

Quality Assessment

Quality of selected articles was assessed using the quality rating tool described in Appendix C. 

We abstracted data on completeness of follow-up (<30% drop-out rate, <10% differential dropout rate); method to address incomplete data; adequacy of randomization; adequacy of allocation 

concealment; outcome assessment blind to intervention allocation; and whether there was a 

conflict of interest, either stated or implied.

Data Synthesis

We constructed evidence tables showing the study characteristics and results for all included 

articles, organized by the unique studies from which they were derived. We critically analyzed 

studies to compare characteristics, methods, and findings. We compiled a summary of findings 

and drew conclusions based on qualitative synthesis of the findings.

Peer Review

A draft version of this report was sent to three peer reviewers. Their comments and our responses 

are presented in Appendix B.
8

Evidence Synthesis for Determining the Efficacy of 

Psychotherapy for Treatment Resistant Depression Evidence-based Synthesis Program

RESULTS

Literature Flow

Using the search strategy described in Appendix A, 41 systematic reviews were identified, of 

which 29 were excluded at the title and abstract level and the remaining 12 were excluded after 

conducting a full-text review (Figure 1). Reviews were excluded primarily because they did 

not apply to the question we were addressing or were not systematic; therefore, no systematic 

reviews were included in this report. 

Next, we searched for relevant randomized clinical trials. Using the search strategy described 

in Appendix B, 333 randomized clinical trials were identified for review. Of these, 290 were 

excluded at the title and abstract level, and 43 were selected for full text review. Thirty-one 

articles were excluded following full-text review, yielding 12 articles for inclusion (Figure 2). 

These 12 articles represent five unique studies, of which one of the studies (STAR*D trial) used 

both augmentation and substitution treatment modalities in separate treatment arms, each with 

a unique comparison group. These two arms were treated as separate studies in this review. 

Therefore, the evidence tables and narrative summarize six studies, with the caveat that two of 

the studies represented separate arms of the same trial. Full consensus was achieved between the 

two reviewers at each stage. 

Sample Characteristics

A total of 567 patients were evaluated across the studies. Patients were recruited from both 

mental health clinics (MHC) and primary care (PC) clinics. Three studies were conducted in the 

United States, two in Great Britain, and one in Canada. None of the studies recruited participants 

from VA clinics. Sample sizes ranged from 24 to 304 participants; two studies contributed 81% 

of the subjects.37, 40 Across all studies, participants’ average age was approximately 40-yearsold, females compromised half to three quarters of the studies’ participants, and Caucasians 

represented at least 75% of the racial makeup in studies that reported ethnicity. The average 

length of patients’ current depressive episodes ranged from 30 to 123 weeks, with the average 

number of lifetime depressive episodes ranging from 2.2 to 8.5. For all studies, depression 

severity was moderate as determined by self-report measures. These characteristics are 

summarized in Table 1 and show significant heterogeneity in depression severity and chronicity. 

Sample characteristics for the psychotherapy and the comparison groups are provided if reported.
9

Evidence Synthesis for Determining the Efficacy of 

Psychotherapy for Treatment Resistant Depression Evidence-based Synthesis Program

Table 1: Sample Characteristics

Study Harley et al., 

2008

Kennedy et 

al., 2003

Scott et al., 

2000

Thase et al., 

2007 (Augmentation 

Arm)

Thase et al., 

2007 (Substitution Arm)

Blackburn 

& Moore, 

1997*†

Sample size, n

Psychotherapy

 Comparator

13

11

23

21

80

78

65

117

36

86

17

20

Age, y (M±SD)

Psychotherapy

 Comparator 41.8

40.7±12.5

37.7±11.3

43.5 ± 9.8

43.2 ±11.2

40.6 ± 11.5

39.7 ± 13.5

43.4 ± 14.7

41.5 ± 13.3

37.8 ± 13.1

40.1 ± 12.7

Female, n

 Psychotherapy

 Comparator 18 (75%)

12 (52%)

12 (57%)

37 (46%)

41 (53%)

41 (63%)

78 (67%)

22 (61%)

53 (62%)

17 (77%)*

17 (65%)*

Caucasian, n

 Psychotherapy

 Comparator 20 (83%)

_ _

52 (80%)

99 (85%)

28 (78%)

63 (73%)

_

Duration of current episode, wks 

(M±SD)

Psychotherapy

 Comparator

28.7 ± 18.8

41.8 ± 53.6

126 ± 170

120 ± 161

62.9

56.4

129 ± 214

87 ± 206

76 ± 135

115 ± 234

30.4 ± 6.1

29.9 ± 5.6

Number of prior 

MDD episodes 

(M±SD)

 Psychotherapy

 Comparator

Not 

Reported

2.1± 1.5

2.3 ± 1.4

2 (median)

2 (median)

7.3 ± 14.1

4.6 ± 5.4

8.7 ± 18.8

8.4 ± 16.0

4.1 ± 3.4

3.2 ± 2.2

Baseline HAM-Da

scores

 Psychotherapy

 Comparator

16.2 ± 4.5

18.6 ± 4.7

12.1 ± 2.2

11.6 ± 1.9

12.1 ± 2.7

12.2 ± 2.9

17.8 ± 5.7

16.0 ± 6.7

16.4 ± 6.2

16.0 ± 6.7

11.8 ± 6.3

10.6 ± 6.8

Baseline selfreport scores

 Psychotherapy

 Comparator

BDIb

27.3 ± 8.8

27.4 ± 11.7

BDI

22.7 ± 8.6

22.4 ± 10.3

BDI

21.7 ± 7.7

22.3 ± 8.0

QIDS-SRc

11.9 ± 4.3

12.0 ± 4.6

QIDS-SR

11.2 ± 4.3

12.1 ± 4.6

BDI

20.4 ± 11.1

19.7 ± 14.2

Setting MHCd MHC MHC MHC & PCe MHC & PC MHC

Location Boston, MA Canada England U.S.A. U.S.A. Scotland

*†HAM-D, BDI and QIDS-SR scores based on smaller number that enrolled in phase 2 of the study following initial treatment 

with ADM

a HAM-D=Hamiltion Depresion Scale; b

BDI=Beck Depression Inventory; bcQIDS-SR=Quick Inventory of Depressive SymptomsSelf Report; d

MHC=Mental Health Clinic; ePC=Primary Care Clinic
10

Evidence Synthesis for Determining the Efficacy of 

Psychotherapy for Treatment Resistant Depression Evidence-based Synthesis Program

To determine persistence, studies used different criteria but followed similar methodology. First, 

authors ensured that patients had a MDD at baseline. Second, patients underwent antidepressant 

(AD) treatment at adequate dose as first step treatment. Third, authors ensured that patients 

continued to have residual symptoms of MDD. All studies except Harley et al. (2008) reported 

criteria used to determine initial depression diagnosis. Two studies provided 1st step AD 

treatment whereas the others relied on non-study practitioners. HAM-D scores, either singly 

or in combination with BDI scores, were used predominantly to determine residual depression 

following AD treatment. The various criteria used to determine persistence are summarized in 

Table 2. 

Table 2: Criteria to Determine Persistent Depression

Study Harley et al., 2008 Kennedy et al., 

2003 Scott et al., 2000 Thase et al., 2007 Blackburn & Moore, 1997

Criteria for 

initial depression 

diagnosis

Not Reported HAM-D=17≥16

MDD episode in previous 18 months according to DSM-III-R; 

residual symptoms 

for ≥8 weeks

Hx of MDD; HAMD≥14Unipolar MDD using 

SADSa; HAM-D≥16

1St step ADb

treatment: Type 

and Dosage

As prescribed by 

non-study psychiatrists

Moclobemide 

(300-600 mg/day) 

OR Paroxetine 

(20-40 mg/day) OR 

Sertraline (50-200 

mg/day)

OR Venlafaxine 

(75-225 mg/day)

Tricyclic antidepressant, SSRI, atypical 

AD, or MAOI; Minimum dose equivalent to 125 mg of 

amitriptyline)

Citalopram 20 mg/

day titrated to 40 

mg by week 4 if 

needed; Max. 60 

mg/day by week 6

As prescribed by 

non-study practitioners; Equivalent to 

100 mg amitryptiline 

OR 45 mg phenelzine OR 20 mg of 

Sertraline

1st Step AD 

Treatment: 

Duration

≥6 weeks 8-14 weeks

≥8 weeks (at least 4 

weeks of adequate 

dose)

14 weeks 16 weeks

Was 1st AD 

step treatment 

provided in the 

study?

No Yes No Yes No

Criteria to Determine Persistence Following 

1st Step AD 

Treatment

MDD on SCID-Ic HAM-D=8-15 HAM-D≥8 & BDI≥9 HAM-D≥14 

Moderate symptoms 

on BDI and HAMD>11

a

SADS=Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia; bAD=Antidepressant; cSCID-I=Structured 

Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R, I

Study Design & Interventions

Four studies used true randomization whereas the two studies from the STAR*D trial used 

an equipoise stratified randomization design, allowing patients to refuse to be randomized to 

treatments that would not be acceptable. Follow-up durations ranged from 8 to 104 weeks. 

Psychotherapy was examined as an augmentation treatment with antidepressant medication in 

four studies and as a substitution treatment replacing medication in two studies. In terms of the 

modality of psychotherapy provided, one small study used DBT41 whereas all others used CT. 
11

Evidence Synthesis for Determining the Efficacy of 

Psychotherapy for Treatment Resistant Depression Evidence-based Synthesis Program

All patients in the comparison groups were taking antidepressant medications, from a wide array 

of antidepressant classes. Three of the comparison groups received medication in a maintenance 

wait list condition, and three of the comparison groups received an active systematic alteration 

to their medication regimens (including both arms of the STAR*D trial). Retention rates in the 

different conditions ranged from 25% to 91%.

All studies used the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) as their clinician administered 

diagnostic tool. Four studies used the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) as their self-report 

measure whereas the two STAR*D trial studies used the QIDS-SR as their self-report measure. 

Mean baseline scores ranged from 11.2 to 17.3 on the HAM-D and from 20.0 to 27.3 on the BDI. 

Three trials were identified as good quality studies, two studies as fair, and one study as poor. 

Only three studies reported a sample size calculation. Study design and intervention overview is 

provided in Table 3. 

Table 3: Study Design and Interventions

Study Harley et 

al., 2008

Kennedy et 

al., 2003

Scott et al., 

2000

Thase et al., 

2007 (Augment)

Thase et al., 

2007 (Substitute)

Blackburn & 

Moore, 1997

Duration of follow up, 

wks 16 8 20 14 14 104

Study design RCT RCT RCT

Equipoise 

Stratified 

RCT

Equipoise 

Stratified RCT RCT

Augmentation with 

Medication, or Substitution?Augment Augment Augment Augment Substitute Substitute

Psychotherapy 

Intervention Used DBTa

 Group CTb CT CT CT CT

# of sessions 16 12 16 24 24 27

Comparator ADMc

Continue

Lithium 

Augment

ADM 

Continue

ADM 

Augment ADM Switch ADM Continue

Power calculation No No Yes Yes Yes No

Quality rating Fair Fair Good Good Good Poor

a

DBT=Dialectical Behavior Therapy; bCT=Cognitive Therapy; cADM=Antidepressant Medication; dNS=Not Significant
12

Evidence Synthesis for Determining the Efficacy of 

Psychotherapy for Treatment Resistant Depression Evidence-based Synthesis Program

Study Results

Results from the six studies are summarized in Table 4 and are described in detail next. The four 

studies that describe psychotherapy as augmentation treatment are described first, followed by 

the two studies that used psychotherapy as a substitute for medications. 

Psychotherapy as Augmentation to Antidepressant Medication

Harley et al. (2008) examined psychotherapy as an augmentation treatment to medication by 

randomizing 24 patients to either a DBT group (n=13) or to a wait list condition (WL; n=11).41 

Patients in the DBT condition received 16 weekly sessions of a 90-minute coping skills group in 

addition to remaining on antidepressant medication, while patients in the WL condition continued 

taking antidepressant medication and meeting with their psychiatrists and healthcare providers 

as usual. Treatment resistance in this study was defined as current depression determined by a 

structured evaluation after stable, adequate treatment with antidepressant medication for at least 

six weeks. Post treatment analyses found significant differences between the two groups for mean 

scores on the HAM-D (DBT=11.3; WL=17.1; F = 4.63, p < .05) and BDI (DBT=15.1; WL=25.9; 

F = 9.50, p < .01), such that patients in the DBT group evidenced more clinical improvement than 

those in the WL condition. The retention rate was 77% in the DBT group and 82% in the WL 

condition. Given the small sample size and confound of allowing patients to continue in non-CBT 

individual therapy, we assigned an overall quality rating of “fair” to this study.

Kennedy et al. (2003) examined psychotherapy as an augmentation treatment to medication by 

randomizing 44 patients to either cognitive therapy (CT; n=23) or lithium augmentation (LA; 

n=21).42 Patients in the CT condition received 12 psychotherapy sessions delivered over eight 

weeks and were seen every four weeks for a medication checkup, while patients in the LA 

condition had their antidepressant medication augmented with lithium carbonate (starting dose 

of 600mg/day) and were seen every two weeks for clinical management. Treatment resistance in 

this study was defined as having a HAM-D score between 8 and 15 after 8-14 weeks of treatment 

with antidepressant medication. Post treatment analyses found a significant difference between 

the two groups for mean scores on the HAM-D (CT=14.8; LA=9.2; t = 2.02, p = .04), such that 

patients in the LA condition showed a greater decrease in depressive symptoms than those in the 

CT condition. No significant post treatment difference was found between the two groups for 

mean scores on the BDI (CT=19.9; LA=15.1). The retention rate was 74% in the CT condition 

and 71% in the LA condition. One limitation of this study is that it only included “partial 

responders” to initial antidepressant medication treatment (i.e., HAM-D score from 8 to 15) and 

excluded “non-responders” (i.e., HAM-D ≥ 16). It also did not report a sample size calculation 

and probably lacked sufficient statistical power to detect clinically important differences. We 

assigned an overall quality rating of “fair” to this study.

Multiple articles were identified for a study that examined psychotherapy as an augmentation 

treatment to medication.40, 43-46 Data were primarily extracted from Scott et al. (2000).40 In this 

good quality study, 158 patients were randomized to either CT (n=80) or clinical management 

(CM; n=78). An analysis of the pre-set sample size of 160 gave 80% power to detect a reduction 

in relapse rates from 40% in one group to 20% in the other at p = .05. Patients in the CT condition 
13

Evidence Synthesis for Determining the Efficacy of 

Psychotherapy for Treatment Resistant Depression Evidence-based Synthesis Program

received 16 psychotherapy sessions over 20 weeks in addition to continuing on antidepressant 

medication, while patients in the CM condition continued on antidepressant treatment and were 

seen every four weeks for 30-minite medication management appointments. Treatment resistance 

in this study was defined as having a HAM-D score ≥ 8 and BDI score ≥ 9 after at least eight weeks 

of adequate treatment with an antidepressant medication. Participants had an average age of 43 and 

49% were female. The average duration of participants’ current depressive episode was 60 weeks 

(CT=63; CM=56), with both groups having a median of two lifetime episodes of depression. While 

participants in both conditions improved, post treatment analyses found no significant differences 

between the two groups for mean scores on the HAM-D (CT=8.7; CM=9.4) or BDI (CT=13.8; 

CM=16.1). Retention was measured as staying in until relapse or until the end of the study at 68 

weeks, resulting in a 76% retention rate in the CT condition and an 85% retention rate in the CM 

condition. A limitation of this study is that it allowed for patients with partially remitted depressive 

symptoms and no diagnosis of current major depression to participate. 

The STAR*D trial32, 37, 47, 48 was a multistage, multicenter trial that examined both psychotherapy 

and medication as either augmentation or substitution treatments to initial treatment with 

citalopram. Treatment resistance in the STAR*D trial was defined as having a HAM-D score ≥ 

14 after 14 weeks of treatment with citalopram. The equipoise-stratified randomization design 

employed in this study allowed patients to refuse randomization to treatment strategies that they 

found unacceptable, which resulted in asymmetrical sample sizes for different treatment arms. 

Less than one third of participants agreed to true randomization, which is a significant limitation 

of the study in terms of internal validity. Analyses conducted prior to data collection indicate that 

too few patients were randomized to the different treatment conditions to achieve the originally 

desired power. However, this study represents the best external validity given that they accounted 

for patient preferences, which is similar to what may be expected in primary care settings. We 

assigned an overall quality rating of “good” to both the augmentation and substitution arms of 

this study. Data are presented separately below, first examining psychotherapy and medication as 

an augmentation to citalopram and then examining psychotherapy and medication as substitution 

treatments to replace citalopram. Data were primarily extracted from Thase et al. (2007).37 

In the augmentation arm, 182 patients were assigned to either augmentation cognitive therapy 

(A-CT; n=65) or augmentation antidepressant medication (A-ADM; n=117). Patients in the 

A-CT condition received 16 psychotherapy sessions over 12 weeks in addition to continuing on 

citalopram, while patients in the A-ADM condition had their treatment with citalopram augmented 

with either bupropion or buspirone. Participants had an average age of 40, 65% were female, and 

83% were Caucasian. The average duration of participants’ current depressive episode was 102 

weeks (A-CT=129; A-ADM=87), with a mean of 5.6 lifetime episodes of depression (A-CT=7.3; 

A-ADM=4.6). There were no significant between-group differences in mean baseline depression 

scores on the HAM-D (A-CT=17.8; A-ADM=16.0) or QIDS-C (A-CT=11.9; A-ADM=12.0). 

While participants in both conditions evidenced significant improvement, post treatment analyses 

found no significant differences between the two groups for percent remitted on the HAM-D 

(A-CT=23.1%; A-ADM=33.3%) or for mean scores on the QIDS-C (A-CT=8.2; A-ADM=8.2). 

However, participants in the A-ADM condition did demonstrate quicker benefit than participants 

in the A-CT condition. The retention rate was 91% in the A-CT condition (although only 27% of 

patients completed at least 16 sessions) and 81% in the A-ADM condition.
14

Evidence Synthesis for Determining the Efficacy of 

Psychotherapy for Treatment Resistant Depression Evidence-based Synthesis Program

In summary, the two good quality, moderate sized trials showed equal benefit from augmenting 

antidepressant medication with 16 to 24 sessions of cognitive therapy and from active 

management of depression with medication, whereas a small fair quality study showed greater 

benefit from lithium augmentation than cognitive therapy augmentation. A single fair quality 

trial showed short-term benefit from 16 sessions of DBT. Because study populations and designs 

were conceptually heterogeneous, a summary estimate of effect was not calculated.

Psychotherapy as Step-2 Substitution for Antidepressant Medication

In the substitution arm of STAR*D, 122 patients were randomized using an equipoise-stratified 

randomization design to either substitution cognitive therapy (S-CT; n=36) or substitution 

antidepressant medication (S-ADM; n=86). Patients in the S-CT condition discontinued 

treatment with citalopram and received 16 psychotherapy sessions over 12 weeks, while patients 

in the S-ADM condition discontinued citalopram and switched to treatment with bupropion, 

sertraline, or venlafaxine. Participants had an average age of 42, 61% were female, and 75% 

were Caucasian. The average duration of participants’ current depressive episode was 103 

weeks (S-CT=76; S-ADM=115), with a mean of 8.5 lifetime episodes of depression (S-CT=8.7; 

S-ADM=8.4). There were no significant between-group differences in mean baseline depression 

scores on the HAM-D (S-CT=16.4; S-ADM=16.0) or QID-S (S-CT=11.2; S-ADM=12.1). While 

participants in both conditions evidenced significant improvement, post treatment analyses 

found no significant differences between the two groups for percent remitted on the HAM-D (SCT=25.0%; S-ADM=27.9%) or for mean scores on the QID-S (S-CT=9.1; S-ADM=9.1). The 

retention rate was 83% in the S-CT condition (although only 35% completed at least 16 sessions) 

and 73% in the S-ADM condition.

The poor quality study by Blackburn and Moore (1997) examined psychotherapy as a 

substitution treatment to replace antidepressant medication by randomizing 37 patients to either 

CT (n=17) or antidepressant medication (ADM; n=20).49 Patients in the CT condition received 

27 psychotherapy sessions over 104 weeks, while patients in the ADM condition continued on 

an antidepressant medication of their prescriber’s choice (prescribers were also free to switch 

medications) and were seen by their providers about every three weeks. Treatment resistance 

was not specifically defined in this study, but after 16 weeks of treatment with an antidepressant 

medication, patients continued to have depressive symptoms at a level comparable to that of the 

other patient populations included in this review (see Table 1). Post treatment analyses found 

no significant differences between the two groups for mean scores on the HAM-D (CT=8.6; 

ADM=9.3) or BDI (CT=14.2; ADM=18.1). The retention rate was 35% in the CT condition and 

was 25% in the ADM condition. The “poor” quality rating was based on the poor retention rate, 

lack of statistical power, unorthodox length of CT treatment protocol, and lack of operational 

definition for treatment resistance.

In summary, a moderate-sized, good quality study and a small, poor quality study found equal 

benefit from substituting cognitive therapy for antidepressant treatment and from continuing 

management of depression with medication in patients with treatment resistant MDD.
15

Evidence Synthesis for Determining the Efficacy of 

Psychotherapy for Treatment Resistant Depression Evidence-based Synthesis Program

Table 4: Results of the Psychotherapy Intervention

Study Harley et al., 

2008

Kennedy et 

al., 2003

Scott et al., 

2000

Thase et al., 

2007 (Augmentation)

Thase et 

al., 2007 

(Substitution)

Blackburn & 

Moore, 1997

Retention rate, n

 Psychotherapy

 Comparator

10 (77%)

9 (82%)

17 (74%)

15 (71%)

61 (76%)

66 (85%)

59 (91%)

95 (81%)

30 (83%)

63 (73%)

6 (35%)

5 (25%)

Post-treatment 

HAM-D Scores 

(M±SD)

 Psychotherapy

 Comparator

Effect Size

11.3 ± 5.3

17.1 ± 6.2 

d=1.45

14.8 ± 9.9

9.2 ± 6.7 

d=.32

8.7±5.3

9.4 ± 5.3 NSa

Remission:

23.1%

33.3% 

NS

Remission:

25.0%

27.9% 

NS

8.6±5.6

9.3±7.2 

NS

Post-treatment

BDI Scores 

(M±SD)

 Psychotherapy

 Comparator

Effect Size

15.1 ±12.1

25.9±16.3 

d=1.31

19.9 ± 10.3

15.1 ±11.4 

NS

13.8 ±9.6

16.1 ± 10.0 

NS

8.2 ±5.1

8.2 ± 4.8 NS*

9.1 ± 5.4

9.1 ± 5.0 

NS*

14.2 ± 9.9

18.1 ± 13.1 

NS

Quality rating Fair Fair Good Good Good Poor

a NS=Not significant at p<.05; *Results are for QIDS-C
16

Evidence Synthesis for Determining the Efficacy of 

Psychotherapy for Treatment Resistant Depression Evidence-based Synthesis Program

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

The key observation that emerges from review of the literature is that current evidence 

examining the effect of psychotherapy as augmentation or substitute therapy in resistant 

depression is sparse and reveals mixed results. Of the six studies reviewed, four studies 

examined psychotherapy as augmentation to antidepressant treatment37, 40-42 and two studies 

examined psychotherapy as substitution treatment.37, 49 The STAR*D trial reflects the greatest 

ecological validity of the studies reviewed, because it accounted for patient preference in 

randomization and is most reflective of treatment provided in primary care settings. One study 

suggested that psychotherapy used as augmentation had better impact on clinical symptoms of 

MDD than medication alone41 whereas Kennedy et al. found the opposite effect.42 The remaining 

studies did not detect any difference between psychotherapy augmentation and continuation 

on antidepressant treatment.37, 40 Substitution of antidepressant therapy with psychotherapy 

appeared to have the same benefit as substituting another antidepressant37 or continuing previous 

medication.49 While each of the studies included in this review addressed at least a portion of 

the initial key research question, none of the studies provides a complete answer to the initial 

question nor does an amalgamated consideration of the studies provide an entirely sufficient 

answer to the initial question. Most studies appeared to be underpowered to detect moderately 

large treatment effects, and conclusions are tempered by the heterogeneity in study designs 

and patient populations and limited number of good quality trials. We conclude that although 

current trials do not support favoring psychotherapy over antidepressant medication for mid-life 

adults with treatment resistant MDD, psychotherapy appears to be an equally effective treatment 

compared to antidepressant medication and is therefore a reasonable treatment option for this 

demographic. Whether these results are directly applicable to Veterans is uncertain. Veterans 

are on average older and have high rates of psychiatric and medical co-morbidity, clinical 

characteristics that were not well described in the studies reviewed.

Treatment via psychotherapy continues to face numerous barriers both in primary care and 

specialty mental health settings. The first consideration is access to psychotherapy. Many Veterans 

live in underserved areas and may have to travel farther to access facilities that would offer 

psychotherapeutic interventions. This issue is exacerbated by the greater time commitment required 

to receive traditional psychotherapy, which often requires weekly or biweekly face-to-face contact 

for an hour each. A second consideration is the relative cost of delivering psychotherapy versus 

providing antidepressant medications. The baseline costs of psychotherapy are typically higher, 

especially when delivered by a mental health professional such as a psychologist.50, 51 However, 

there appears to be dispute when mid to long-term outcomes are measured. Some studies have 

demonstrated that antidepressant medications are more cost-effective within 1 year of follow-up 

for both direct and indirect costs.52, 53, whereas other studies have not found differences in direct, 

aggregate or societal costs.51, 54, 55 Studies have found psychotherapy to be superior in reducing 

costs related to missed work 56, treatment of medical comorbidities57, and relapse.45 Therefore, the 

cost-benefit ratio of antidepressant treatment versus psychotherapy remains disputed. A further 

limitation is that no current study has examined the cost-effectiveness of the two treatments in 

patients who do not respond to initial antidepressant treatment. Because TRD is both common and 

costly58, large, high quality, long-term randomized trials are needed to evaluate the effectiveness 

and cost-effectiveness of different treatment strategies for patients with TRD. 
17

Evidence Synthesis for Determining the Efficacy of 

Psychotherapy for Treatment Resistant Depression Evidence-based Synthesis Program

One strategy to increase access and cost-effectiveness of psychotherapy involves collaborative 

care. Recent research has shown that training non-mental health professionals (e.g., nurses) to 

provide brief psychotherapeutic interventions are effective in reducing depressive symptoms.59-61

Collaborative care models involving depression care managers has been shown to improve the 

quality of depression care, symptom severity, patient satisfaction, and functional impairment.50, 

62 Some of these trials59, 63 utilized empirically based psychotherapy as a step-2 treatment option 

for treatment resistant patients. These studies were conducted in older adults with MDD or 

dysthymia who are more similar to the Veteran population than most of the studies we reviewed 

in the current evidence synthesis. Unfortunately, the psychotherapy was delivered as part of 

a package of collaborative care and its unique contribution to improved outcomes cannot be 

assessed. Nevertheless, evidence suggests that training non-mental health professionals to deliver 

brief psychotherapy may improve outcomes in primary care patients without burdening resources 

within the VA system.

Prior systematic reviews 19-23 have shown that psychotherapy and antidepressant medications 

have similar benefit in acute phase treatment for MDD. For patients with chronic MDD or 

dysthymia, current evidence supports the combination of psychotherapy and antidepressant 

medication for initial treatment. Treatment resistant depression is common and a greater number 

of effective treatment options are needed. Our evidence synthesis found only limited studies that 

do not support psychotherapy as a step-2 strategy, either for augmentation or as a substitute for 

antidepressant medication. 

Limitations

Several limitations of the current literature emerged upon review. First, few RCTs exist that 

adequately address the question of resistant depression. In the future, this may be addressed in 

two ways: 1) re-analysis of existing data from trials in which patients with TRD are recruited, 

or 2) conducting studies designed to examine this question. Second, there was significant 

heterogeneity in how resistant depression was defined in the different studies. Measures 

included interviewer rated depression scales (e.g., HAM-D), self-report depression scales (e.g., 

BDI), DSM diagnostic criteria (DSM-III-R or DSM-IV), and clinical judgment. Future studies 

should consider a standardized operational definition of TRD to facilitate comparisons across 

studies. Third, all of the studies involved comparators that received active treatment. True 

placebo controlled trials may be necessary to compare the relative effects of psychotherapy and 

antidepressants as second step treatments. Fourth, none of the six studies reviewed involved 

patients from within the VA. Compared to the general population, Veterans have higher 

incidences of depression with psychiatric and medical comorbidities.4 Therefore, results of 

the current review may have limited generalizability to the VA population. Fifth, only two 

psychotherapeutic strategies have been considered in the limited literature, with the majority 

using CT. Traditionally, CT requires a minimum of 12-16 sessions and is often delivered by 

trained experts. As a result, none of the psychotherapies reviewed were likely to be administered 

within the primary care setting. This is in contrast with the larger literature, where brief therapies 

such as problem-solving therapy and interpersonal therapy have been adapted by non-mental 

health professionals with demonstrated improvements as first step treatments in primary care 

settings.50 Studies to compare the effectiveness of differing psychotherapies could inform policy.
18

Evidence Synthesis for Determining the Efficacy of 

Psychotherapy for Treatment Resistant Depression Evidence-based Synthesis Program

FUTURE RESEARCH

There is a pressing need to conduct RCTs examining psychotherapy as a second step treatment 

in patients who have not responded to initial antidepressant medication treatment. Studies 

conducted within the VA would provide the best evidence on how to treat veterans. As more 

OEF/OIF veterans return with significant medical and psychiatric comorbidities, this question 

will become critical in the management of MDD. 

Future investigations should also address cost-effectiveness of the different treatment options. 

To our knowledge, no current study has examined the cost-effectiveness of psychotherapy 

versus antidepressant treatment when used as second step treatment. As a first step, analyses 

using observational data from the VA depression registry may be informative. Ideally, however, 

studies designed for this purpose would involve longer follow-up, as well as measures of direct 

costs, indirect costs, and costs associated with comorbid non-psychiatric conditions. Finally, 

innovative interventions are needed that adapt validated psychotherapeutic techniques to primary 

care settings. The VA has already initiated primary care mental health integration techniques; 

however, there remains a need for trials of depression treatments to inform the specific treatments 

offered in these integrated models. This will be crucial in improving access for underserved 

veterans while simultaneously reducing the strain on the VA resources. 
19

Evidence Synthesis for Determining the Efficacy of 

Psychotherapy for Treatment Resistant Depression Evidence-based Synthesis Program

Appendix A: Search Strategy

Question: In primary care patients with major depressive disorder who do not achieve 

remission with acute phase antidepressant treatment, is empirically based psychotherapy 

used as an augmentation or substitution treatment more effective than control for achieving 

remission? Empirically based psychotherapies to be considered are: cognitive behavioral 

therapy, interpersonal therapy, problem-solving therapy, dialectical behavior therapy, and 

acceptance and commitment therapy. 

Inclusion Criteria- Systematic Reviews

Systematic Review

Does psychotherapy benefit patients who have been previously not responded to adequate 

pharmacotherapy?

Search Strategy for Systematic Review: Database: PubMed Medline – 1950 to February 26, 2009

1 “Depressive Disorder”[Mesh] OR (major AND depression) 71993

2 ((problem-solving OR interpersonal OR dialectical behav* OR acceptance 

OR commitment OR mindfulness) AND (therapy OR psychotherapy)) OR 

“Psychotherapy”[Mesh] OR “Behavior Therapy”[Mesh]

229473

3 (“Combined Modality Therapy”[Mesh] OR Drug resistant[Mesh] OR additive OR 

augmentation OR augment* OR relaps* OR recurrent OR refractory OR resistant 

OR persisten* OR treatment failure[Mesh])

1147546

4 #1 AND #2 AND #3 1997

5 Limits: Humans, English, All Adult: 19+ years 1078

6 systematic[sb] 116759

7 #5 AND #6 34

8 Cochrane Database Syst Rev [TA] OR search[Title/Abstract] OR metaanalysis[Publication Type] OR MEDLINE[Title/abstract] OR (systematic[Title/

Abstract] AND review[Title/Abstract])

140388

9 #5 AND #8 24

10 #7 OR #9 41

For Systematic Reviews, the Medline search yielded 41 articles. Title and abstracts were 

reviewed by 2 independent persons who identified 12 articles for full text review. Of the 12 

reviewed, 0 were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria previously established; therefore no 

systematic reviews will be included for this question in the final report. 

Inclusion Criteria- Randomized Controlled Trials

Randomized controlled trials

Outpatient setting

Patients from general population (not special populations)
20

Evidence Synthesis for Determining the Efficacy of 

Psychotherapy for Treatment Resistant Depression Evidence-based Synthesis Program

Adults who have not remised or responded significantly to anti-depressant medication for > 6 

wks and not in therapy (CBT, IPT, Sol. Focused, DBT, ACT, MBT)

If mixed sample, at least 80% must be partial or non-responders or outcomes reported separately 

Exclude: patients with MDD where guidelines recommend mental health specialty care (eg. high 

suicidality, substance abuse, borderline personality d/o)

Relevant comparison

English language articles

Search Strategy for Randomized Controlled Trials: Database: PubMed Medline - 1950 to 

February 26, 2009

1 “Depressive Disorder”[Mesh] OR (major AND depression) 71993

2 ((problem-solving OR interpersonal OR dialectical behav* OR acceptance 

OR commitment OR mindfulness) AND (therapy OR psychotherapy)) OR 

“Psychotherapy”[Mesh] OR “Behavior Therapy”[Mesh] 

229441

3 “Combined Modality Therapy”[Mesh] OR Drug resistant[Mesh] OR additive OR 

augmentation OR augment* OR relaps* OR recurrent OR refractory OR resistant 

OR persisten* OR treatment failure[Mesh]

1147546

4 randomized controlled trial[Publication Type] OR (randomized[Title/Abstract] 

AND controlled[Title/Abstract] AND trial[Title/Abstract])

275228

5 #1 AND #2 AND #3 AND #4 422

6 Limits: Humans, English, All Adult: 19+ years 333

For Randomized Control Trials, the Medline search yielded 333 articles. Title and abstracts 

were reviewed by 2 independent persons who identified 43 articles for full text review. Of the 43 

articles reviewed, 12 were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria previously established. 
21

Evidence Synthesis for Determining the Efficacy of 

Psychotherapy for Treatment Resistant Depression Evidence-based Synthesis Program

# citations

41

 # excluded

 29

# full text review

12

 # excluded

 12

# included

0

Figure 1. Systematic Reviews Literature Flow

# citations

333

 # excluded

 290

# full text review

43

 # excluded

 31

# included

12

Figure 2. Randomized Controlled Trials Literature Flow
22

Evidence Synthesis for Determining the Efficacy of 

Psychotherapy for Treatment Resistant Depression Evidence-based Synthesis Program

Appendix B: Peer Review

Question 1: Are the objectives, scope, and methods for this review clearly described?

Reviewer Comment Reply

1 Excellent description of objectives, scope, and methods. This 

review exposes the scarcity of good studies to answer this 

question. The conclusions fit the data.

Acknowledged

2 Clearly described, concisely written, comprehensive, well 

thought out review.

Acknowledged

3 The authors have been particularly thorough in describing clearly 

the objectives, scope, and methods for this review. I don’t believe 

any reader would be left with any question about these.

(As a small matter, on page 15, “solution-focused therapy” 

was listed as one of the empirically-based psychotherapies 

that were considered for purposes of the study. However, in 

Appendix A, this was not listed as one of the search terms; 

“problem-solving” was listed. I think these are both terms of 

art, and are different. Do you want to conform the terms? I 

think the authors likely considered problem solving therapy, but 

not solution-focused therapy.)

Acknowledged

Thank you for pointing out this 

discrepancy. We have now 

changed the term “solution-focused 

therapy” to “problem-solving 

therapy” to reflect terms included in 

the literature search (pg 15, 16).

Question 2: Is there any indication of bias in our synthesis of the evidence? 

Reviewer Comment Reply

1 No indication of bias. This review follows rigorous methods for 

systematic selection and analysis

Acknowledged 

2 No Acknowledged

3 I see no indication of bias in the synthesis of the evidence. 

Indeed, it appears that the authors have gone out of their way 

to eliminate any opportunity for bias.

 Acknowledged

Question 3 Are there any studies on responsiveness of depression questionnaires or relapse 

prevention trials related to this report that we have overlooked?

Reviewer Comment Reply

1 I don’t know of any others Acknowledged

2 None Acknowledged

3 I don’t know of any studies on the effectiveness of 

psychotherapy as a second step treatment for MDD in patients 

who do not achieve remission after initial treatment with 

antidepressants, per se, that have been overlooked.

 Acknowledged

Question 4: Please write additional suggestions or additional comments below for this report. 

If applicable, please indicate the page and line numbers from the draft report. 

Reviewer Comment Reply

1 P 6, last line: suggest changing “control” to “comparison 

group,” a term that is more consistent with most patients in this 

group being on some form of treatment.

This review achieves impressive rigor and thoroughness for 

such a limited number of studies. 

We agree with this assertion and 

have attempted to make this point 

throughout the review. However, 

in that specific place, we have 

opted to retain the wording as 

initially developed by VA Central 

Office to avoid confusion regarding 

the question we were originally 

attempting to answer with this review. 
23

Evidence Synthesis for Determining the Efficacy of 

Psychotherapy for Treatment Resistant Depression Evidence-based Synthesis Program

2 4.

a. p. 9 typo, 2nd line from bottom: should be “antidepressant 

medication with CT.

b. p.10. I think the summary and conclusions understate the 

equivalence of CT vs medication as a switch choice. The 

STAR*D data suggested little difference for the between CT 

and meds for the switch arms, and hence for patients who 

would prefer CT it may be a reasonable option. 

c. I’m concerned with the statement: “Based on this sparse 

evidence, we conclude that current trials do not support a 

benefit from adding psychotherapy to antidepressant medication for mid-life adults with treatment resistant MDD”. While it 

is technically correct, I think it is at risk of being mis-interpreted 

too strongly as an indication that there is no role for CT as 

an adjunct in TRD. It seems the evidence is insufficient to 

conclude one way or the other, and I think the wording should 

reflect that the current data do not support a benefit, but that 

the data is insufficient to make a conclusion and that future 

studies may likely change this result. 

d. p.20. Table 1 might benefit from a row that allows a better 

comparison of the level of depressive severity when beginning 

psychotherapy treatment, for e.g., clarifying the BDI or QIDS 

scores as “mild”, “moderate” or “severe”, and a row

that allows comparison of the prior antidepressant treatment 

(e.g.,

antidepressant type, dose, duration). Also, can one report 

the number of prior treatment failures for the current episode?

Finally, the definition of persistent depression (listed in the evidence tables in the appendices) is quite information and would 

be a useful row in Table 1. I realize, however, that some of 

this information may not be available for many studies.

e. Can the authors clarify whether any of the studies directly 

addressed the research question they pose? If not, how might 

they suggest designing a future research project to address 

this question directly? Also, might they suggest a study to 

address the long term risk benefits of a switch to CT (or an 

empirically based psychotherapy) vs medications?

a. Thank you for finding this error. 

The typo has been corrected.

b.& c. We agree with the reviewer 

that our summary and conclusions 

did not emphasize the equivalence 

of the two treatment modalities. We 

have modified the summary statements on pages 9, 10, and 30 to 

reflect the equivalence that we generally observed in studies comparing CT and meds, and to reflect our 

belief that CT remains a reasonable 

treatment option in patients with 

TRD. As we state repeatedly in the 

review, the current evidence is not 

sufficient to determine the superiority of one treatment modality over 

the other. Future research with 

rigorous study designs is necessary 

to definitively answer this question.

d. Per the reviewer’s suggestion, 

we report that that depression 

severity in each study was “moderate.” We agree with the reviewer 

that the number of failures of treatment may be important information 

in evaluating the extent of TRD; 

however, this information was not 

reported in the reviewed studies 

and hence cannot be included. 

We agree that describing persistent 

depression within the text would be 

helpful. We have incorporated this 

suggestion by creating a new table 

(Table 2) that describes the various 

definitions of persistent depression, 

and summarizes antidepressant 

type, dosage, and duration. The 

Additional information about prior 

antidepressant treatment was also 

added to the definitions of persistent depression in the evidence 

tables in the appendices.

e. A sentence was added to the 

discussion on page 30 clarifying 

our position that we do not consider 

the initial key research question 

adequately answered by our review. 

Regarding the reviewer’s suggestion 

of designing a study, our current

(cont’d.)
24

Evidence Synthesis for Determining the Efficacy of 

Psychotherapy for Treatment Resistant Depression Evidence-based Synthesis Program

2 (cont’d) version outlines important components of such a study in the Future 

Research section (pg 35) as well as 

highlights these in the Summary and 

Discussion section. Specifically, we 

highlight the need to study TRD in 

the context of impact on work, medical comorbidities, relapse, and the 

need for cost-effectiveness analysis 

of the different treatments available.

3 This report looked at the condition of treatment resistant major 

depression that failed to respond to an adequate dose of 

antidepressant treatment. I wonder if it would be worth looking 

at individuals who have treatment resistant major depression 

that failed to respond to an adequate dose of antidepressant 

treatment? 

I know of two recent studies that may be worth reviewing:

Watchful waiting for minor depression in primary care: remission rates and predictors of improvement. M.T. Hegel et 

al. General Hospital Psychiatry 28 (2006) 205–212. This 

study suggests that for treatment-seeking samples with minor 

depression in primary care an avoidant coping style seriously interferes with remission, and engaging in regular active 

pleasant events confers an advantage. It further suggests that 

feasible interventions for primary care that promote activity and 

decrease avoidant coping styles may improve outcomes.

Cortico-limbic response to personally challenging emotional 

stimuli after complete recovery from depression. J.M. Hooley 

et al. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging 171 (2009) 106–

119. This study suggests that vulnerability to depression may 

be associated with abnormalities in cortico-limbic activation 

that are independent of mood state and that remain even after 

full recovery.

Perhaps there are similar processes at work in those with 

treatment resistant major depression that failed to respond to 

an adequate dose of antidepressant treatment that would not 

respond to traditional psychotherapeutic approaches.

The reviewer makes an interesting 

point. The Hegel study suggests that 

patients with minor depression may 

be successfully treated in primary 

care through pleasant activities and 

by reducing avoidant coping. The 

extensive literature on coping and 

depression supports this conclusion. 

It is likely that patients with minor 

depression may be patients who 

have residual symptoms after an 

MDD episode, in other words, TRD. 

However, it seems that a discussion 

of such interventions is beyond the 

scope of this review because of our 

original goal of comparing CT with 

medications in a treatment resistant 

population. Future reviews may address this issue by incorporating all 

treatments provided in primary care 

settings, and treatments provided to 

patients who may or may not have 

TRD. 

Regarding the Hooley study, it 

would be certainly worthwhile to 

determine the neurological mechanisms that may contribute to TRD 

and/or relapse. Unfortunately, a 

discussion of such mechanisms is 

beyond the scope of this review as 

defined by the VA Central office. 

Question 5: Recommendations for future ESP topical areas of interest or programmatic comments may also be included at the end of this section. 

Reviewer Comment Reply

1 No comment Acknowledged

2 None 

3 I agree wholeheartedly with the statement on page 34 that 

there remains a need for trials of depression treatments to 

inform the specific treatments offered (and to be offered) in 

primary care mental health integration models. This is a pressing need. I would argue that the population of patients that 

could benefit from efficacious and effective treatments in such 

models is far larger than the population of patients who suffer 

from treatment resistant depression.

 Acknowledged
25

Evidence Synthesis for Determining the Efficacy of 

Psychotherapy for Treatment Resistant Depression Evidence-based Synthesis Program

Appendix C: Evidence Tables of RCTs
26

Psychotherapy for Treatment Resistant DepressionEvidence Synthesis for Determining the Efficacy of 

Evidence-based Synthesis Program

Study ID 

TreatmentsDefinition & Persistence Study Information Participants Results Comments/Quality Scoring

al., 2008Harley et 

determined by consentreatment for MDD (as adequate medication Despite stable, Depression:Persistent 

-

sus of 2 senior psychiproviders as usual. psychiatrists and other and meeting with prescribed medications included taking as usual, which continued treatment Pts in this group Wait List (WL) Comparator: minutes each. sessions lasting 90 skills group; 16 weekly DBT based depression Therapy (DBT) Group Dialectical Behavior Psychotherapy: on the SCID-I. met criteria for MDD in MDD), patients still atrists with expertise 

Geographical location: Boston, MA VA sites: referred by outpatient providers.Setting: MHC; participants were 

No

Study design: RCTDuration of follow up: WL: 11DBT: 13Total: 24Number of participants enrolled: 

16 weeks

Inclusion criteria: 

Age 18-65 -Principal diagnosis of MDD on -Have an established treatment 

SCID

-

Stabilized on adequate dose of 

relationship with a psychiatrist

-

entry)for at least 6 weeks before study entering study (no dosage change antidepressant medication before 

Exclusion criteria: 

Bipolar disorder -Psychotic spectrum disorders -Active substance abuse or depen- -Mental retardation

dence

-

Pervasive developmental disorder -Active suicidality -Severe or unstable medical condi- -Patients with previous or current 

tions

-

Borderline Personality Disorder

CBT experience

-

Age: [mean]Sex:Total: 41.8

 [female %]

antidepressant triNumber of lifetime WL: 292.40 (374.94)DBT: 201.00 (131.59)[mean (SD)]episode in days: Duration of current Total: 83%[white (%)] Race/ethnicity:Total: 75%

-

als: [mean (SD)]Number of hospitalWL: 4.27 (2.45)DBT: 3.31 (1.70)

-

izations: [mean (SD)]Engaged in conWL: 25.18 (15.20)DBT: 27.08 (14.23)[mean (SD)]Age at first MDE: WL: 0.27 (0.65) DBT: 0.85 (0.99)

-

Total: 83%individual therapy:current non-CBT 

HAM-D at baseline: severity:1) Interviewer rated depression 

[mean (SD)]

HAM-D at follow-up: WL: 18.64 (4.72)DBT: 16.15 (4.47)

[mean (SD)]

BDI at baseline: severity:2) Self-reported depression p<.05; D=1.45).HAM-D scores than WL (F=4.63; DBT group had significantly lower WL: 17.11 (6.23)DBT: 11.30 (5.31)

[mean (SD)]

BDI at follow-up: WL: 27.44 (11.66)DBT: 27.31 (8.83)

[mean (SD)]

p<.01; D=1.31).BDI scores than WL (F=9.50; DBT group had significantly lower WL: 25.89 (16.30)DBT: 15.10 (12.13)

Small sample sizes, limited inComments:

-

Allocation concealment adRandomization adequate?: YQuality assessment:confound of individual therapy.baseline characteristics, and formation provided on samples’ 

-

Overall quality rating: FairConflict of interest?: Nadequately?: UnknownIncomplete data addressed < 10%?: YDifferential dropout rateDropout rate < 30%?: YOutcomes assessed blind?: Y Subject/providers blind?: NValid outcome assessment?: YBaseline comparability?: Yequate?: Y
27

Psychotherapy for Treatment Resistant DepressionEvidence Synthesis for Determining the Efficacy of 

Evidence-based Synthesis Program

Study ID

TreatmentsDefinition & Persistence Study Information Participants Results Comments/Quality Scoring

2003et al., Kennedy 

after 8-14 weeks of anHAM-D-17≥16 and criteria for MDE with Having initially met depression:Persistent 

-

clinical management.2 weeks for routine Pts were seen every day after 2-4 weeks. increase by 300 mg/which clinicians could lithium carbonate, with 600 mg/day of AD therapy augmented responders” had their considered “partial Pts who were (LA)Lithium Augmentation Comparator:check up.weeks for a medication were also seen every 4 with AD therapy; pts weeks in combination 12 sessions over 8 (CT)Cognitive Therapy Psychotherapy: had HAM-D=8-15.mg/day), patients still venlafaxine (75-225 (50-200 mg/day), or mg/day), sertraline paroxetine (20-40 (300-600 mg/day), with moclobemide tidepressant treatment 

Geographical location: Toronto, Setting: Canada

MHC

VA sites: NoStudy design: RCTDuration of follow up: LA: 21CT: 23Total: 44Number of participants enrolled: 

8 weeks

Inclusion criteria: 

Age 18-65 -Partial response after receiving -

maximum tolerated doses of moor venlafaxine (choice of antide clobemide, paroxetine, sertraline, -weeksthe treating psychiatrist) for 8-14 pressant was at the discretion of 

Initially met criteria for MDE -HAM-D-17≥16 -At least one prior MDE

Exclusion criteria:-

Major medical disorder -Organic brain syndrome -Schizophrenia or schizoaffective -Bipolar disorder

disorder

-

MDD with psychotic features -Substance or alcohol use or -

dependence within past 6 months

Age: [mean (SD)]Sex: LA: 37.7 (11.3)CT: 40.7 (12.5)

[female, n (%)]

Number of prior epiLA: 119.8 (160.8)CT: 126.4 (170.4)[mean (SD)]episode in weeks: Duration of current Not reportedRace/ethnicity:LA: 12 (57%)CT: 12 (52.2%)

-

sodes: [mean (SD)]Comorbid psychiaLA: 24.4 (13.6)CT: 26.3 (13.5)[mean (SD)]Age at first MDE: LA: 2.3 (1.4)CT: 2.1 (1.5)

-

tric diagnoses: [n LA: 4 (19%)CT: 8 (35%)(%)]

med treatment: HAM-D-17 after 8-14 weeks severity:1) Interviewer rated depression 

[mean (SD)]

HAM-D-17 at follow-up: LA: 11.6 (1.9)CT: 12.1 (2.2)

[mean 

BDI after 8-14 weeks med treatseverity:2) Self-reported depression df=42; p=.04; d=.32).in intent-to-treat analysis (t=2.02; HAM-D-17 scores than CT group LA group had significantly lower LA: 9.2 (6.7)CT: 14.8 (9.9)(SD)]

-

ment: [mean (SD)]BDI at follow-up: LA: 22.4 (10.3)CT: 22.7 (8.6)

[mean (SD)]

No significant differences beLA: 15.1 (11.4)CT: 19.9 (10.3)

-

tween groups.

Allocation concealment adRandomization adequate?: Y Quality assessment:excluded non-responders.Only included partial responders; Comments:

-

Incomplete data addressed ad< 10%?: YDifferential dropout rateDropout rate < 30%?: YOutcomes assessed blind?: Y Subject/providers blind?: NValid outcome assessment?: YBaseline comparability?: Y equate?: Y

-

Overall quality rating: GoodConflict of interest?: Nequately?: Y
28

Psychotherapy for Treatment Resistant DepressionEvidence Synthesis for Determining the Efficacy of 

Evidence-based Synthesis Program

Study ID

& TreatmentsPersistence Definition Study Information Participants Results Comments/Quality Scoring

reference.from this extracted primarily *Data were al., 2001Teasdale et 2000*Scott et al., 2003Scott et al., al., 2005Paykel et al., 1999Paykel et 

minutes each.during follow-up for 30 tx and every 8 weeks every 4 weeks during continuation; pts seen Antidepressant (CM)Clinical Management Comparator:received CM.20 weeks. Pts also 16 sessions over Cognitive Therapy (CT)Psychotherapy: BDI≥9.still had HAM-D≥8 & amitriptyline), patients to at least 125 mg of dosage equivalent weeks of minimum weeks (with 4 or more MAOI for at least 8 SSRI, atypical AD, or tricyclic antidepressant, Despite treatment with Persistent depression: Geographical location: Cambridge 

Setting: & Newcastle, England

MHC; Psychiatric OutpaVA sites: tient ClinicsNo

Study design: RCTDuration of follow up: CMT: 78CT: 80Total: 158Number of participants enrolled: 

20 weeks

Inclusion criteria: 

Age 21-65 -DSM-III-R MDD within past 18 -

≥ 9.past 2 months & HRSD ≥ 8 & BDI months but not MDD criteria in 

Exclusion criteria: 

Bipolar disorder -Cyclothymia -Schizoaffective disorder -Drug or alcohol dependence -Antisocial behavior or self-harm -Dysthymia before age 20 -Borderline personality -Learning disability -Organic brain damage -Other primary Axis I disorder -Currently receiving psychotherapy -

than 5 sessionsor previously received CT for more 

Age: [mean Sex:CM: 43.2 (11.2)CT: 43.5 (9.8)(SD)]

 [female, n 

depressive epiDuration of Not reported Race/ethnicity:CM: 41 (53%)CT: 37 (46%)(%)]

-

[median (1sode in months: 

st & 3rd

of MDD: Prior episodes CTM: 13 (9, 21)CT: 14.5 (9, 18)quartiles)]

[median (1st & 3rd

CM: 2 (1, ≥3)CT: 2 (1, ≥3)quartiles)]

trial: HDRS baseline after 8 week drug severity:1) Interviewer rated depression 

[mean (SD)]

HDRS at follow-up: CM=12.2 (2.9)CT=12.1 (2.7)

[mean (SD)]

No significant between group differCM=9.4 (5.3)CT=8.7 (5.3)

-

2) Self-reported depression severp=.14)68 week follow-up (F=2.2; df=1324; over 20 week treatment phase or ences or group x time interactions 

-

trial: BDI baseline after 8 week drug ity:

[mean (SD)]

BDI at follow-up: CM= 22.3 (8.0)CT=21.7 (7.7)

[mean (SD)]

No significant between group differCM= 16.1 (10.0)CT=13.8 (9.6)

-

p=.13)68 week follow-up (F=2.3; df=1293; over 20 week treatment phase or ences or group x time interactions 

remitted but with residual sympNot currently depressed; partially Comments:

-

some dep sx showed sig efIn Scott et al. 2000, found that HDRS and BDIsome depressive symptoms on toms - because not MDD but still 

-

Both CT and CM led to improvesymptomsfects on drug refractory residual 

-

Allocation concealment adRandomization adequate?: YQuality assessment:ment in dep sx

-

Incomplete data addressed ad< 10%?: YDifferential dropout rateDropout rate < 30%?: YOutcomes assessed blind?: Y Subject/providers blind?: N/YValid outcome assessment?: Y Baseline comparability?: Y equate?: Y

-

Overall quality rating: GoodConflict of interest?: Nequately?: Y
29

Psychotherapy for Treatment Resistant DepressionEvidence Synthesis for Determining the Efficacy of 

Evidence-based Synthesis Program

Study ID

& TreatmentsPersistence Definition Study Information Participants Results Comments/Quality Scoring

primarily ex*Data were STAR*Dal., 2007Wisniewski et 2007*Thase et al., 2006Rush et al., 2004Rush et al., 

-

this refertracted from 

-

ence. Switch to CT

for 8 remaining weeks.1-4, then once weekly twice weekly for weeks 16 sessions delivered Cognitive Therapy (CT)Psychotherapy:had HAM-D≥14.14 weeks, patients still mg/day by week 6) for potential dosage of 60 week 4, and maximum to start, 40 mg/day by citalopram (20 mg/day Following treatment with Persistent depression:

: Pts 

Augment CTand began CT.discontinued citalopram 

: Pts 

Switch ADMMedication (ADM)Antidepressant Comparator:and added CT.continued on citalopram 

: 

Augment ADMvenlafaxine.bupropion, sertraline, or citalopram and began Pts discontinued 

: Pts 

buspirone.and added bupropion or continued on citalopram 

Setting: San Diego, NC, IL, MI, VA, TN, ALMA, NY, PA, OK, KS, CA: LA and 14 Regional centers across TX, Geographical location: 

18-Primary Care, 23 MHC 

VA sites: NoStudy design: randomized multiDuration of follow up: Augment ADM=117 Switch ADM=86 Augment CT=65 Switch to CT=36 Total: 304 Number of participants enrolled: step clinical trial 14 weeksInclusion criteria: 

Age 18-75 -Non psychotic MDD -HRSD17≥14

Exclusion criteria:-

Bipolar, schizophrenia, eating d/o, -Hx of intolerability or resistance 

OCD

-

dosageto ≥1 Anti-dep with adequate 

≥7 days Citalopram use prior to -

study enrollment

non-responsive ≥16 session of CT -Medical contraindication

in current MDD episode

-

Pregnant females -Requires psychiatric hospitaliza- -

stabilizerstion, antipsychotics, or mood 

Age: [mean (SD)]Sex: (13.5)Augment ADM=39.7 Switch ADM=41.5 (13.3)(11.5)Augment CT= 40.6 Switch to CT: 43.4 (14.7)

[female, n (%)]

Race/ethnicity:(66.7%)Augment ADM: 78 Switch ADM: 53 (61.6%)Augment CT: 41 (63.1%)Switch to CT: 22 (61.1%)

 [white, 

Number of prior epi(47.5)Augment ADM: 20.0 Switch ADM: 26.5 (54.0)Augment CT: 29.6 (49.4)Switch to CT: 17.4 (31.2)[mean (SD)]episode in months: Duration of depressive (84.6%)Augment ADM: 99 Switch ADM: 63 (73.3%)Augment CT: 52 (80.0%) Switch to CT: 28 (77.8%)n (%)] 

-

sodes of MDD: [mean Augment ADM: 4.6 (5.4)Switch ADM: 8.4 (16.0)Augment CT: 7.3 (14.1)Switch to CT: 8.7 (18.8)(SD)]

1) Interviewer rated depresbetween groups. No significant differences Augment ADM: 8.2 (4.8) Switch ADM: 9.1 (5.0) Augment CT: 8.2 (5.1) Switch to CT: 9.1 (5.4) [mean (SD)] QIDS-C at end of Level 2: Augment ADM: 12.0 (4.6) Switch ADM: 12.1 (4.6) Augment CT: 11.9 (4.3) Switch to CT: 11.2 (4.3) [mean (SD)] QIDS-C at start of Level 2: severity: 2) Self-reported depression between groups. No significant differences Augment ADM: 33.3% Switch ADM: 27.9% Augment CT: 23.1% Switch to CT: 25.0% (HRSD≤7) at end of Level 2: Met remission criteria on Augment ADM: 16.0 (6.7) Switch ADM: 17.7 (6.6) Augment CT: 17.8 (5.7) Switch to CT: 16.4 (6.2) [mean (SD)] HRSD at start of Level 2: sion severity: Numerous pharmaceutical com ADM. to CT lower income than Switch than Augment ADM and Switch CT more impaired & lower QOL Baseline differences in Augment the STAR*D authors. odds with real world experience of psychotherapy acceptability are at randomization. Low rates of randomization, <1/3 agreed to Due to equipoise-stratified Comments: - Allocation concealment ad Randomization adequate?: Y/N Quality assessment: panies supported the project. - Incomplete data addressed ad < 10%?: Y Differential dropout rate Dropout rate < 30%?: Y Outcomes assessed blind?: Y Subject/providers blind?: N Valid outcome assessment?: Y Baseline comparability?: Y/N equate?: Y - Overall quality rating: Good Conflict of interest?: Y equately?: Y
30

Psychotherapy for Treatment Resistant DepressionEvidence Synthesis for Determining the Efficacy of 

Evidence-based Synthesis Program

Study ID

& TreatmentsPersistence Definition Study Information Participants* Results Comments/Quality Scoring

1997& Moore, Blackburn 

1being seen 3 times in over 2 years, with pts 27 sessions delivered Cognitive Therapy (CT) Psychotherapy: on the HAM-D.traditional cut point of 11 the BDI and above the moderate range on symptoms in the to have depressive average continued doses), patients on or above therapeutic choice (prescribed at general practitioner’s medication of the with antidepressant weeks of treatment symptoms over 16 in depressive significant reduction Despite showing Persistent depression:

st month, twice in 2nd

maintenance dose.or above recognized long as prescribed at MAOIs, SSRIs), as choice (tricyclics, of general practitioner’s Maintenance ADM was Medication (ADM)Antidepressant Comparator:thereafter.month, and monthly 

Geographical location: ScotlandSetting: MHC; participants were consultants in a large teaching psyrecruited from outpatient referrals to 

-

VA sites:practices.chiatric hospital and from 2 general 

 No

Study design: RCTDuration of follow up: ADM: 20 (26 initially)CT: 17 (22 initially)Total: 37 (48 initially)Number of participants enrolled:

24 months

Inclusion criteria: 

Age 18-65 -Diagnosis of primary major unipolar -Score of at least 16 on HRSD

depression, non-psychotic

-

Current episode had to be at least -

second MDE

Exclusion criteria:

Having another primary Axis I -Organic brain damage

disorder

-

History of bipolar illness -Alcohol or drug misuse -Could not be prescribed antide- -Unwilling to be randomly allocated 

reasonspressant medication for medical 

-

to treatment

Age: [mean (SD)]Sex:ADM: 40.1 (12.7)CT: 37.8 (13.1)

 [female, n (%)]

Number of prior epiADM: 6.9 (1.3)CT: 7.0 (1.4)[mean (SD)]episode in months: Duration of current Not givenRace/ethnicity:ADM: 17/26 (65%)CT: 17/22 (77%)

-

sodes: [mean (SD)]Number of hospitalADM: 3.2 (2.2)CT: 4.1 (3.4)

-

izations: [mean (SD)]attempts:Number of suicide ADM: 0.8 (2.3)CT: 0.7 (0.9)

 [mean 

initially enrolled par*Data based on ADM: 0.9 (1.9)CT: 0.4 (0.7)(SD)]

-

ticipants.

acute med treatment: HRSD baseline after 16 weeks severity:1) Interviewer rated depression 

[mean 

months follow-up: HRSD interpolated over 24 ADM: 10.6 (6.8)CT: 11.8 (6.3)(SD)]

[mean (SD)]

acute med treatment: BDI baseline after 16 weeks severity:2) Self-reported depression (F=0.31; d.f.=2, 55; NS).difference between treatments ANCOVA showed no significant ADM: 9.3 (7.2)CT: 8.6 (5.6)

[mean 

months follow-up: BDI interpolated over 24 ADM: 19.7 (14.2)CT: 20.4 (11.1)(SD)]

[mean (SD)]

(F=0.72; d.f.=2, 53; NS).difference between treatments ANCOVA showed no significant ADM: 18.1 (13.1)CT: 14.2 (9.9)

Allocation concealment adRandomization adequate?: YQuality assessment:retention for ADM.35% retention for CT and 25% not just the 2 groups of interest.ANCOVAs compared 3 groups, depression.samples met criteria for persistent after 16 weeks of treatment that Reviewers decided based on data Comments:

-

Incomplete data addressed ad< 10%?: NDifferential dropout rateDropout rate < 30%?: NOutcomes assessed blind?: YSubject/providers blind?: NValid outcome assessment?: YBaseline comparability?: Yequate?: Y

-

Overall quality rating: PoorConflict of interest?: Nequately?: Y
31

Evidence Synthesis for Determining the Efficacy of 

Psychotherapy for Treatment Resistant Depression Evidence-based Synthesis Program

REFERENCES

1. Papakostas G, Fava M. Predictors, moderators, and mediators (correlates) of treatment outcome in major depressive disorder. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience. 

2008;10(4):439-451.

2. Hasin DS, Goodwin RD, Stinson FS, Grant BF. Epidemiology of major depressive disorder: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcoholism and Related Conditions. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005;62(10):1097-106.

3. Kessler RC, Berglund P, Demler O, Jin R, Merikangas KR, Walters EE. Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity 

Survey Replication. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005;62(6):593-602.

4. Hankin CS, Spiro A, 3rd, Miller DR, Kazis L. Mental disorders and mental health treatment among U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs outpatients: the Veterans Health Study. 

Am J Psychiatry. 1999;156(12):1924-30.

5. Katon WJ. Clinical and health services relationships between major depression, depressive symptoms, and general medical illness. Biol Psychiatry. 2003;54(3):216-26.

6. Kessler RC, Berglund P, Demler O, et al. The epidemiology of major depressive disorder: results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R). Jama. 

2003;289(23):3095-105.

7. Kronish IM, Rieckmann N, Halm EA, et al. Persistent depression affects adherence 

to secondary prevention behaviors after acute coronary syndromes. J Gen Intern Med. 

2006;21(11):1178-83.

8. Seelig MD, Katon W. Gaps in depression care: why primary care physicians should hone 

their depression screening, diagnosis, and management skills. J Occup Environ Med. 

2008;50(4):451-8.

9. Olfson M, Marcus SC, Druss B, Elinson L, Tanielian T, Pincus HA. National trends in the 

outpatient treatment of depression. JAMA. 2002;287(2):203-9.

10. Karasu TB, Gelenberg A, Merriam A, Wang P. Practice guideline for the treatment of 

patients with major depressive disorder. 2nd ed Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association; 2000 APA Practice Guidelines).

11. Fochtmann LJ, Gelenberg AJ. Guideline watch: Practice guideline for the treatment of 

patients with depressive disorder. 2nd ed Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association; 2005 APA Practice Guidelines).

12. Barbui C, Furukawa TA, Cipriani A. Effectiveness of paroxetine in the treatment of acute 

major depression in adults: a systematic re-examination of published and unpublished 

data from randomized trials. Cmaj. 2008;178(3):296-305.
32

Evidence Synthesis for Determining the Efficacy of 

Psychotherapy for Treatment Resistant Depression Evidence-based Synthesis Program

13. Cipriani A, Furukawa TA, Geddes JR, et al. Does randomized evidence support sertraline 

as first-line antidepressant for adults with acute major depression? A systematic review 

and meta-analysis. J Clin Psychiatry. 2008;69(11):1732-42.

14. Kennedy SH, Andersen HF, Thase ME. Escitalopram in the treatment of major depressive 

disorder: a meta-analysis. Curr Med Res Opin. 2009;25(1):161-75.

15. Mulrow CD, Williams JW, Jr., Chiquette E, et al. Efficacy of newer medications for treating depression in primary care patients. Am J Med. 2000;108(1):54-64.

16. Watanabe N, Omori IM, Nakagawa A, et al. Mirtazapine versus other antidepressants in 

the acute-phase treatment of adults with major depression: systematic review and metaanalysis. J Clin Psychiatry. 2008;69(9):1404-15.

17. Simon GE, Ludman E, Unutzer J, Bauer MS. Design and implementation of a randomized trial evaluating systematic care for bipolar disorder. Bipolar Disord. 2002;4(4):226-

36.

18. Wampold BE. The Great Psychotherapy Debate: Models, Methods, and Findings. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2001.

19. Bortolotti B, Menchetti M, Bellini F, Montaguti MB, Berardi D. Psychological interventions for major depression in primary care: a meta-analytic review of randomized controlled trials. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2008;30(4):293-302.

20. Butler AC, Chapman JE, Forman EM, Beck AT. The empirical status of cognitive-behavioral therapy: a review of meta-analyses. Clin Psychol Rev. 2006;26(1):17-31.

21. Craighead WE, Sheets ES, Brosse AL, Ilardi SS. Psychosocial treatments for major depressive disorder. In: Nathan PE, Gorman JM, eds. A guide to treatments that work. 3rd 

ed. New York: Oxford; 2007:289-293.

22. DeRubeis RJ, Gelfand LA, Tang TZ, Simons AD. Medications versus cognitive behavior 

therapy for severely depressed outpatients: mega-analysis of four randomized comparisons. Am J Psychiatry. 1999;156(7):1007-13.

23. DeRubeis RJ, Hollon SD, Amsterdam JD, et al. Cognitive therapy vs medications 

in the treatment of moderate to severe depression. Archives of General Psychiatry. 

2005;62(4):409-16.

24. Pampallona S, Bollini P, Tibaldi G, Kupelnick B, Munizza C. Combined pharmacotherapy and psychological treatment for depression: a systematic review. Archives of General 

Psychiatry. 2004;61(7):714-9.

25. de Maat SM, Dekker J, Schoevers RA, de Jonghe F. Relative efficacy of psychotherapy 

and combined therapy in the treatment of depression: a meta-analysis. Eur Psychiatry. 

2007;22(1):1-8.
33

Evidence Synthesis for Determining the Efficacy of 

Psychotherapy for Treatment Resistant Depression Evidence-based Synthesis Program

26. Fava M, Rush AJ. Current status of augmentation and combination treatments for major 

depressive disorder: a literature review and a proposal for a novel approach to improve 

practice. Psychother Psychosom. 2006;75(3):139-53.

27. Segal Z, Vincent P, Levitt A. Efficacy of combined, sequential and crossover psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy in improving outcomes in depression. J Psychiatry Neurosci. 

2002;27(4):281-90.

28. Cornwall PL, Scott J. Partial remission in depressive disorders. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 

1997;95(4):265-71.

29. Fava M. Diagnosis and definition of treatment-resistant depression. Biol Psychiatry. 

2003;53(8):649-59.

30. Stimpson N, Agrawal N, Lewis G. Randomised controlled trials investigating pharmacological and psychological interventions for treatment-refractory depression. Systematic 

review. Br J Psychiatry. 2002;181:284-94.

31. Trivedi MH. Major depressive disorder: remission of associated symptoms. J Clin Psychiatry. 2006;67 Suppl 6:27-32.

32. Rush AJ, Fava M, Wisniewski SR, et al. Sequenced treatment alternatives to relieve depression (STAR*D): rationale and design. Controlled Clinical Trials. 2004;25(1):119-42.

33. Rush AJ, Wisniewski SR, Warden D, et al. Selecting among second-step antidepressant 

medication monotherapies: predictive value of clinical, demographic, or first-step treatment features. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2008;65(8):870-80.

34. Corey-Lisle PK, Nash R, Stang P, Swindle R. Response, Partial Response, and Nonresponse in Primary Care Treatment of Depression. Archives of Internal Medicine. 

2004;164(11):1197-1204.

35. Sherbourne C, Schoenbaum M, Wells KB, Croghan TW. Characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes of persistent depression despite treatment in primary care. General 

Hospital Psychiatry. 2004;26(2):106-14.

36. Souery D, Oswald P, Massat I, et al. Clinical factors associated with treatment resistance 

in major depressive disorder: results from a European multicenter study. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. 2007;68(7):1062-70.

37. Thase ME, Friedman ES, Biggs MM, et al. Cognitive therapy versus medication in augmentation and switch strategies as second-step treatments: a STAR*D report. American 

Journal of Psychiatry. 2007;164(5):739-52.

38. Markowitz JC. When should psychotherapy be the treatment of choice for major depressive disorder? Current Psychiatry Reports. 2008;10(6):452-7.

39. Mitchell AJ. Depressed patients and treatment adherence. Lancet. 2006;367(9528):2041-

3.
34

Evidence Synthesis for Determining the Efficacy of 

Psychotherapy for Treatment Resistant Depression Evidence-based Synthesis Program

40. Scott J, Teasdale JD, Paykel ES, et al. Effects of cognitive therapy on psychological 

symptoms and social functioning in residual depression. British Journal of Psychiatry. 

2000;177:440-6.

41. Harley R, Sprich S, Safren S, Jacobo M, Fava M. Adaptation of dialectical behavior 

therapy skills training group for treatment-resistant depression. Journal of Nervous and 

Mental Disease. 2008;196(2):136-43.

42. Kennedy SH, Segal ZV, Cohen NL, Levitan RD, Gemar M, Bagby RM. Lithium carbonate versus cognitive therapy as sequential combination treatment strategies in partial 

responders to antidepressant medication: an exploratory trial. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. 2003;64(4):439-44.

43. Paykel ES, Scott J, Cornwall PL, et al. Duration of relapse prevention after cognitive 

therapy in residual depression: follow-up of controlled trial. Psychological Medicine. 

2005;35(1):59-68.

44. Paykel ES, Scott J, Teasdale JD, et al. Prevention of relapse in residual depression by 

cognitive therapy: a controlled trial. Archives of General Psychiatry. 1999;56(9):829-35.

45. Scott J, Palmer S, Paykel E, Teasdale J, Hayhurst H. Use of cognitive therapy for relapse 

prevention in chronic depression. Cost-effectiveness study. British Journal of Psychiatry. 

2003;182:221-7.

46. Teasdale JD, Scott J, Moore RG, Hayhurst H, Pope M, Paykel ES. How does cognitive 

therapy prevent relapse in residual depression? Evidence from a controlled trial. Journal 

of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2001;69(3):347-57.

47. Rush AJ, Trivedi MH, Wisniewski SR, et al. Acute and longer-term outcomes in depressed outpatients requiring one or several treatment steps: a STAR*D report. American 

Journal of Psychiatry. 2006;163(11):1905-17.

48. Wisniewski SR, Fava M, Trivedi MH, et al. Acceptability of second-step treatments to depressed outpatients: a STAR*D report. American Journal of Psychiatry. 2007;164(5):753-

60.

49. Blackburn IM, Moore RG. Controlled acute and follow-up trial of cognitive therapy and 

pharmacotherapy in out-patients with recurrent depression. British Journal of Psychiatry. 

1997;171:328-34.

50. Wolf NJ, Hopko DR. Psychosocial and pharmacological interventions for depressed 

adults in primary care: a critical review. Clinical Psychology Review. 2008;28(1):131-61.

51. Bower P, Gilbody S, Richards D, Fletcher J, Sutton A. Collaborative care for depression 

in primary care. Making sense of a complex intervention: systematic review and metaregression. Br J Psychiatry. 2006;189:484-93.
35

Evidence Synthesis for Determining the Efficacy of 

Psychotherapy for Treatment Resistant Depression Evidence-based Synthesis Program

52. Lave JR, Frank RG, Schulberg HC, Kamlet MS. Cost-effectiveness of treatments for major depression in primary care practice. Archives of General Psychiatry. 1998;55(7):645-

51.

53. Barrett B, Byford S, Knapp M. Evidence of cost-effective treatments for depression: a 

systematic review. J Affect Disord. 2005;84(1):1-13.

54. Leff J, Vearnals S, Brewin CR, et al. The London Depression Intervention Trial. Randomised controlled trial of antidepressants v. couple therapy in the treatment and maintenance of people with depression living with a partner: clinical outcome and costs. British 

Journal of Psychiatry. 2000;177:95-100.

55. Simpson S, Corney R, Fitzgerald P, Beecham J. A randomized controlled trial to evaluate 

the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of psychodynamic counselling for general practice patients with chronic depression. Psychological Medicine. 2003;33(2):229-39.

56. Mynors-Wallis L, Davies I, Gray A, Barbour F, Gath D. A randomised controlled trial and 

cost analysis of problem-solving treatment for emotional disorders given by community 

nurses in primary care. Br J Psychiatry. 1997;170:113-9.

57. Guthrie E, Moorey J, Margison F, et al. Cost-effectiveness of brief psychodynamicinterpersonal therapy in high utilizers of psychiatric services. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 

1999;56(6):519-26.

58. Russell JM, Hawkins K, Ozminkowski RJ, et al. The cost consequences of treatmentresistant depression. J Clin Psychiatry. 2004;65(3):341-7.

59. Unutzer J, Katon W, Callahan CM, et al. Collaborative care management of latelife depression in the primary care setting: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 

2002;288(22):2836-45.

60. Williams JW, Jr., Gerrity M, Holsinger T, Dobscha S, Gaynes B, Dietrich A. Systematic 

review of multifaceted interventions to improve depression care. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 

2007;29(2):91-116.

61. Katon W, Von Korff M, Lin E, et al. Stepped collaborative care for primary care patients with persistent symptoms of depression: a randomized trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 

1999;56(12):1109-15.

62. Williams JM, Teasdale JD, Segal ZV, Soulsby J. Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy 

reduces overgeneral autobiographical memory in formerly depressed patients. Journal of 

Abnormal Psychology. 2000;109(1):150-5.

63. Bruce ML, Ten Have TR, Reynolds CF, 3rd, et al. Reducing suicidal ideation and depressive symptoms in depressed older primary care patients: a randomized controlled trial. 

JAMA. 2004;291(9):1081-91.