Reconceptualising treatment-resistant depression as difficult-to-treat depression

We are heartened that our consensus statement1 on difficult-to-treat depression has provoked robust debate. As pointed out by Lisa Cosgrove and colleagues,2 our proposed definition and model of care for difficult-to-treat depression is not derived from a systematic review or a Delphi technique. The term difficult-to-treat depression had previously been proposed to address semantic and conceptual issues with the so-called treatment-resistant depression model, for patients where achieving sustained remission proves elusive.3 We aimed to extend the discussion regarding this proposal, focusing on practical clinical advice. As the concept of difficult-to-treat depression is new, there is no literature to systematically review. The literature around the management of so-called treatment-resistant depression has been reviewed on many occasions, but this literature was only of partial relevance to our aims. Not only is there no universally accepted definition of treatment-resistant depression, but those that are used rarely if ever take into account psychotherapeutic or neurostimulatory treatments, or how to account for differential efficacy among treatments.4, 5 At the core of the proposed difficult-to-treat depression model is the importance of taking a holistic approach and considering all treatment options available. A systematic review of all treatments for depression was not practical. As a result, our consensus was based on the culmination of extensive discussion and deliberation among 15 international experts in the management of depression from across three continents, and the national guidelines for the treatment of depression from the countries represented. Rather than through a Delphi technique, we arrived at a consensus through many iterative reviews of the manuscript until all 15 contributors were comfortable with all the statements being discussed. However, we wish to clarify two key points that we feel Cosgrove and colleagues might have misunderstood