Treatment-Resistant Depression in Real-World Clinical Practice: A Systematic Literature Review of Data from 2012 to 2022

Objective Real-world evidence in treatment-resistant depression (TRD; commonly defined as non-response to ≥ 2 consecutive treatments at adequate dosage and duration) is lacking. A systematic literature review was conducted to understand disease burden and treatment outcomes for patients with TRD, studied in a real-world setting over the last decade. Data Sources A literature search was conducted in May 2022 in MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Libraries and PsycINFO, comprising studies published from 2012 to 2022. Bibliographies of all relevant identified systematic reviews and relevant conference proceedings from 2020 to 2022 were manually hand-searched. Study Selection Real-world studies, including cohort, cross-sectional, case–control, chart review and registry studies, published in English and reporting outcomes in adults with TRD, were included. Data Extraction Extracted data included study and baseline disease characteristics, treatment type, treatment response, clinical outcomes and health-related quality of life. Results Twenty studies were included. Criteria for TRD varied, but patients typically experienced long-lasting depression (range 1.4 to 16.5 years). Across studies, mean disease severity scores demonstrated moderate to severe depression, reflecting a high burden of disease at baseline. Remission rates were typically low but generally increased with longer follow-up durations. However, the heterogeneity of interventions, follow-up durations (range 2 weeks to 9.4 years) and assessment tools precluded their quantitative synthesis. Studies were frequently limited by low sample size (range 14 to 411 patients) and health-related quality of life was infrequently assessed. Conclusions There is a lack of clinical consensus regarding the definition, assessment and monitoring of TRD in real-world practice. Nevertheless, TRD carries a high burden of illness and there is an unmet need for faster and more effective treatments. To better understand the personal burden of affected patients, future studies would benefit from standardisation of severity assessment and measures of treatment effectiveness, as well as greater consideration of health-related quality of life.