Barbosa Laura, Berk Michael, Vorster Merryll
Department of Psychiatry, University of the Witwatersrand Medical School, Parktown, South Africa.
J Clin Psychiatry. 2003 Apr;64(4):403-7. doi: 10.4088/jcp.v64n0407.
Evidence of the antidepressant efficacy of lamotrigine is increasing, although there are no placebo-controlled trials of lamotrigine augmentation in depression. The aim of this study was to assess if augmentation with lamotrigine was superior to placebo in patients who were receiving fluoxetine for resistant major depressive episodes.
Twenty-three patients who had experienced at least 1 major depressive episode that was resistant to at least 1 prior trial of antidepressant therapy were selected. These patients were treated with fluoxetine, 20 mg/day, and concomitantly randomly assigned to receive either lamotrigine (N = 13) or placebo (N = 10) for 6 weeks. The dose of lamotrigine was titrated upward from 25 mg/day to 100 mg/day. Patients suffering from bipolar II disorder (N = 8) or from major depressive disorder (N = 15) (DSM-IV criteria) were enrolled, resulting in heterogeneity of the sample. The primary outcome measure was Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score. Data were collected from 2000-2001.
Lamotrigine was statistically superior to placebo on the Clinical Global Impressions scale at endpoint, both in absolute terms (mean +/- SD Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scores: lamotrigine, 2.15 +/- 1.28; placebo, 3.40 +/- 1.17; p =.0308) and using a responder analysis, with response defined as a Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement score of 2 or less (lamotrigine, 84.62% [N = 11]; placebo, 30.00% [N = 3]; p =.013). The effect of lamotrigine on Clinical Global Impressions scale scores was seen in both major depressive disorder and bipolar II disorder. Lamotrigine, however, failed to separate statistically from placebo on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale. This failure to differentiate on a primary outcome measure is essentially a negative study result. This result is most likely an artifact of the small sample size used and the resultant limited power of the study.
The results of this trial add to the literature suggesting potential efficacy of the antidepressant profile of lamotrigine. In addition, this study points to a possible role of lamotrigine as an augmentation agent in depression.
尽管尚无关于拉莫三嗪增效治疗抑郁症的安慰剂对照试验,但拉莫三嗪抗抑郁疗效的证据正在增加。本研究的目的是评估在接受氟西汀治疗难治性重度抑郁发作的患者中,拉莫三嗪增效治疗是否优于安慰剂。
选取23例经历过至少1次重度抑郁发作且对至少1次先前抗抑郁治疗试验耐药的患者。这些患者接受20mg/天的氟西汀治疗,并同时随机分配接受拉莫三嗪(N = 13)或安慰剂(N = 10)治疗6周。拉莫三嗪的剂量从25mg/天逐步滴定至100mg/天。纳入了符合双相II型障碍(N = 8)或重度抑郁障碍(N = 15)(DSM-IV标准)的患者,导致样本存在异质性。主要结局指标为汉密尔顿抑郁量表评分。数据收集于2000年至2001年。
在终点时,拉莫三嗪在临床总体印象量表上在统计学上优于安慰剂,无论是绝对值(平均±标准差临床总体印象-疾病严重程度评分:拉莫三嗪,2.15±1.28;安慰剂,3.40±1.17;p = 0.0308),还是采用反应者分析,反应定义为临床总体印象-改善评分≤2(拉莫三嗪,84.62%[N = 11];安慰剂,30.00%[N = 3];p = 0.013)。拉莫三嗪对临床总体印象量表评分的影响在重度抑郁障碍和双相II型障碍患者中均可见。然而,在汉密尔顿抑郁量表和蒙哥马利-阿斯伯格抑郁量表上,拉莫三嗪在统计学上未能与安慰剂区分开来。在主要结局指标上未能区分本质上是一个阴性研究结果。该结果很可能是所用样本量小以及由此导致的研究效能有限的人为因素。
该试验结果为拉莫三嗪抗抑郁特性的潜在疗效增添了文献依据。此外,本研究指出拉莫三嗪在抑郁症中作为增效剂可能发挥的作用。