Ried L Douglas, Tueth Michael J, Handberg Eileen, Kupfer Stuart, Pepine Carl J
Rehabilitation Outcomes Research Center, Malcom Randall Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Department of Veterans Affairs, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Psychosom Med. 2005 May-Jun;67(3):398-406. doi: 10.1097/01.psy.0000160468.69451.7f.
The International Verapamil/Trandolapril Study (INVEST) demonstrated comparable efficacy between verapamil SR and atenolol antihypertensive treatment strategies for clinical outcomes and blood pressure (BP) control in hypertensive patients with coronary artery disease (N = 22,576). Effects of these antihypertension strategies on mood-related issues are not well understood.
The objectives of this study were 1) to compare depressive symptoms by strategy and 2) to identify predictors of depressive symptoms in INVEST patients after 1 year of follow up.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Depressive symptoms were assessed in a subset (N = 2317) of consecutively randomized U.S. patients enrolled between April 1, 1999, and October 31, 1999. Patients were mailed surveys after randomization and after 1 year of treatment.
Patients were assigned to either a verapamil SR or atenolol strategy to achieve Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure BP goals. Trandolapril and/or hydrochlorothiazide were recommended as add-on agents.
Depressive symptoms were measured by the Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression (CES-D) scale.
CES-D scores improved 1.45 points (p < .001) after 1 year in patients assigned to the verapamil SR strategy, whereas a nonsignificant improvement was observed in patients assigned to the atenolol strategy (0.27 points, p = .44). Predictors of higher depressive symptoms were higher baseline CES-D score (p < .001), history of depression diagnosis (p = .03), history of stroke (p < .001), and assignment to the atenolol strategy (p < .001).
A verapamil SR strategy is a viable alternative to beta-blocker therapy for hypertensive patients with coronary artery disease, especially those at risk of depression.
国际维拉帕米/群多普利研究(INVEST)表明,对于冠心病高血压患者(N = 22,576),缓释维拉帕米和阿替洛尔降压治疗策略在临床结局和血压(BP)控制方面疗效相当。这些降压策略对情绪相关问题的影响尚不清楚。
本研究的目的是1)按策略比较抑郁症状,以及2)在INVEST患者随访1年后确定抑郁症状的预测因素。
设计、地点和患者:对1999年4月1日至1999年10月31日期间连续随机分组的美国患者子集(N = 2317)进行抑郁症状评估。患者在随机分组后和治疗1年后收到邮寄的调查问卷。
患者被分配至缓释维拉帕米或阿替洛尔策略,以实现美国预防、检测、评估与治疗高血压联合委员会的血压目标。推荐群多普利和/或氢氯噻嗪作为附加药物。
采用流行病学研究中心抑郁量表(CES-D)测量抑郁症状。
采用缓释维拉帕米策略的患者在1年后CES-D评分改善了1.45分(p <.),而采用阿替洛尔策略的患者改善不显著(0.27分,p =.44)。抑郁症状较重的预测因素包括较高的基线CES-D评分(p <.)、抑郁症诊断史(p =.03)、中风史(p <.)以及被分配至阿替洛尔策略(p <.)。
对于冠心病高血压患者,尤其是有抑郁风险的患者,缓释维拉帕米策略是β受体阻滞剂治疗的可行替代方案。