BACKGROUND: The purpose of this update is to add newly approved nomenclatures and treatments as well as treatments yet to be approved in major depressive disorder, thus expanding the discussions on the integration of resistance factors into the clinical approach.
METHODS: Unlike the first consensus guidelines based on the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, the French Association for Biological Psychiatry and Neuropsychopharmacology (AFPBN) developed an update of these guidelines for the management of partially responsive depression (PRD) and treatment-resistant depression (TRD). The expert guidelines combine scientific evidence and expert clinicians\' opinions to produce recommendations for PRD and TRD.
RESULTS: The recommendations addressed three areas judged as essential for updating the previous 2019 AFPBN guidelines for the management of patients with TRD: (1) the identification of risk factors associated with TRD, (2) the therapeutic management of patients with PRD and TRD, and (3) the indications, the modalities of use and the monitoring of recent glutamate receptor modulating agents (esketamine and ketamine).
CONCLUSIONS: These consensus-based guidelines make it possible to build bridges between the available empirical literature and clinical practice, with a highlight on the \'real world\' of the clinical practice, supported by a pragmatic approach centred on the experience of specialised prescribers in TRD.

Clear guidance for successive antidepressant pharmacological treatments for non-responders in major depression is not well established.
Based on the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, the French Association for Biological Psychiatry and Neuropsychopharmacology and the fondation FondaMental developed expert consensus guidelines for the management of treatment-resistant depression. The expert guidelines combine scientific evidence and expert clinicians\' opinions to produce recommendations for treatment-resistant depression. A written survey comprising 118 questions related to highly-detailed clinical presentations was completed on a risk-benefit scale ranging from 0 to 9 by 36 psychiatrist experts in the field of major depression and its treatments. Key-recommendations are provided by the scientific committee after data analysis and interpretation of the results of the survey.
The scope of these guidelines encompasses the assessment of pharmacological resistance and situations at risk of resistance, as well as the pharmacological and psychological strategies in major depression.
The expert consensus guidelines will contribute to facilitate treatment decisions for clinicians involved in the daily assessment and management of treatment-resistant depression across a number of common and complex clinical situations.

Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) are seen as the gold standard of evidence-based care. Because of their influence, these guidelines can have profound legal and economic effects. Despite their proliferation and influence, the trustworthiness and quality of guidelines have been seriously questioned and they have been implicated as drivers of overtreatment. In the U.S, augmentation with second generation antipsychotics (SGAs) is becoming an increasingly common strategy for treating major depressive disorder (MDD) when initial antidepressant treatment does not result in remission of symptoms. However, there is debate about the evidence for augmentation and whether this strategy is a form of overtreatment. We conducted a systematic search to identify treatment guidelines for MDD. Fourteen international guidelines met inclusion criteria and we reviewed them to determine: 1) if augmentation with SGAs was recommended for patients who did not respond to antidepressant medication; 2) what evidence was cited for the recommendation for or against augmentation; 3) the extent to which the guidelines addressed risk/benefit concerns when making their recommendations. There was significant variation among the CPGs regarding the recommendation to augment with antipsychotic medication for Major Depressive Disorder. Seven guidelines explicitly recommended augmentation with antipsychotics; 1 guideline reviewed the evidence but neither recommended for nor against; 1 guideline did not make a clear recommendation; 2 guidelines explicitly recommended against augmentation; and 3 guidelines did not address augmentation with antipsychotics as a potential treatment strategy. There was wide variation in terms of attention to risk/benefit issues and to the conditions under which augmentation should be considered. The results are discussed in terms of the implications for risk management and informed consent practices.