Gill D, Hatcher S
Whipps Cross Hospital, Dept. of Liaison Psychiatry, PO BOX 777, Oxford, UK, OX3 7LF.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Jul 18;2000(4):CD001312. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001312.pub2.
Depression in the physically unwell is common and an important cause of morbidity. There are problems with diagnosing depression in the physically ill which may lead to under-recognition and under-treatment. In clinical practice antidepressants are available and a feasible option for treating depressive disorders. Therefore we thought it would be a reasonable first step in addressing this problem to describe the literature of randomised controlled trials in this area.
To determine whether antidepressants are clinically effective and acceptable for the treatment of depression in people who also have a physical illness.
MEDLINE, Cochrane Library Trials Register and Cochrane Depression and Neurosis Group Trials Register were all systematically searched, supplemented by hand searches of two journals and reference searching.
All relevant randomised trials comparing any antidepressant drug (as defined in the British National Formulary) with placebo or no treatment, in patients of either sex over 16, who have been diagnosed as depressed by any criterion, and have a specified physical disorder (for example cancer, myocardial infarction). "Functional" disorders where there is no generally agreed physical pathology (e.g. irritable bowel syndrome) were excluded. The main outcome measures are numbers of individuals who recover/improve at the end of the trial and, as a proxy for treatment acceptability, numbers who complete treatment.
Data was extracted independently by the reviewers onto data collection forms and differences settled by discussion.
18 studies were included, covering 838 patients with a range of physical diseases (cancer 2, diabetes 1, head injury 1, heart 1, HIV 5, lung 1, multiple sclerosis 1, renal 1, stroke 3, mixed 2). Depression was diagnosed clinically in 3 studies, otherwise by structured interview or checklist. Only 5 studies described how they performed randomisation. 1 study compared drug with no treatment, and the rest with placebo: all of the latter said they were double blind.6 studies used SSRIs, 3 atypical antidepressants, and the remainder tricyclics.Patients treated with antidepressants were significantly more likely to improve than those given placebo (13 studies, OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.27-0.51) or no treatment (1 study, OR 3.45, 95% CI 11.1-1.10). About 4 patients would need to be treated with antidepressants to produce one recovery from depression which would not have occurred had they been given placebo (NNT 4.2, 95% CI 3.2-6.4). Most antidepressants (tricyclics and SSRIs together, 15 trials ) produced a small but significant increase in dropout (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.14-2.40. NNH 9.8, 95% CI 5.4-42.9). The "atypical" antidepressant mianserin produced significantly less dropout than placebo. Only 2 studies used numerical scales designed to measure effects on function and quality of life; in HIV (Karnofsky scale), drug was better than no treatment; in lung disease (Sickness Impact Profile), drug was not significantly different from placebo. Only 7 studies reported looking for changes in the physical disease. Antidepressants produced no change in immune function in HIV relative to placebo (2 studies) or no treatment (1 study). Relative to placebo, antidepressants produced no change in cardiovascular function in heart disease, in respiratory function in lung disease, or in vital signs or laboratory tests in cancer (1 study each). Nortriptyline produced worse control in diabetes. Trends towards tricyclics being more effective than SSRIs, but also more likely to produce dropout were noted, but these are based on non-randomised comparisons between trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The review provides evidence that antidepressants, significantly more frequently than either placebo or no treatment, cause improvement in depression in patients with a wide range of physical diseases. About 4 patients would need to be treated with antidepressants to produce one recovery from depression which would not have occurred had they been given placebo (NNT 4.2, 95% CI 3.2-6.4). Antidepressants seem reasonably acceptable to patients, in that about 10 patients would need to be treated with antidepressants to produce one dropout from treatment which would not have occurred had they been given placebo (NNH 9.8, 95% CI 5.4-42.9).The evidence is consistent across the trials, apart from 2 trials in cancer, where the "atypical" antidepressant mianserin produced significantly less dropout than placebo. Trends towards tricyclics being more effective than SSRIs, but also more likely to produce dropout were noted, but these are based on non-randomised comparisons between trials. Problems with the evidence include most of the trials' use of observers, rather than patients, to decide on improvement, and concentration mainly on symptoms rather than function and quality of life. There is also a possibility of undetected negative trials.Nevertheless, the review provides evidence that use of antidepressants should at least be considered in those with both physical illness and depression. Regarding diagnosis, the existence of a cheap and readily available treatment for depression should encourage detailed assessment of persistent low mood in the physically ill.
身体不适者中抑郁症很常见,且是发病的一个重要原因。在身体疾病患者中诊断抑郁症存在问题,这可能导致识别不足和治疗不足。在临床实践中,抗抑郁药是可用的,并且是治疗抑郁症的一个可行选择。因此,我们认为描述该领域随机对照试验的文献将是解决这个问题的合理第一步。
确定抗抑郁药对同时患有身体疾病的人治疗抑郁症是否具有临床疗效和可接受性。
系统检索了MEDLINE、Cochrane图书馆试验注册库和Cochrane抑郁症与神经症小组试验注册库,并辅以对两种期刊的手工检索和参考文献检索。
所有相关随机试验,比较任何抗抑郁药(如英国国家处方集所定义)与安慰剂或不治疗,受试者为16岁以上的任何性别患者,这些患者已根据任何标准被诊断为抑郁症,且患有特定的身体疾病(如癌症、心肌梗死)。排除没有普遍认可的身体病理学的“功能性”疾病(如肠易激综合征)。主要结局指标是试验结束时康复/改善的个体数量,以及作为治疗可接受性替代指标的完成治疗的个体数量。
reviewers独立将数据提取到数据收集表上,并通过讨论解决分歧。
纳入18项研究,涵盖838名患有一系列身体疾病的患者(癌症2例、糖尿病1例、头部损伤1例、心脏病1例、HIV 5例、肺部疾病1例、多发性硬化症1例、肾脏疾病1例、中风3例、混合疾病2例)。3项研究通过临床诊断抑郁症,其他研究通过结构化访谈或清单诊断。只有5项研究描述了他们如何进行随机分组。1项研究比较了药物与不治疗,其余研究与安慰剂比较:后者均称是双盲试验。6项研究使用了选择性5-羟色胺再摄取抑制剂(SSRI),3项使用非典型抗抑郁药,其余使用三环类抗抑郁药。与给予安慰剂(13项研究,比值比0.37,95%置信区间0.27 - 0.51)或不治疗(1项研究,比值比3.45,95%置信区间1.10 - 11.1)的患者相比,接受抗抑郁药治疗的患者改善的可能性显著更高。大约需要4名患者接受抗抑郁药治疗才能使1名患者从抑郁症中康复,而如果给予安慰剂则不会康复(需治疗人数4.2,95%置信区间3.2 - 6.4)。大多数抗抑郁药(三环类和SSRI一起,15项试验)导致脱落率有小幅但显著的增加(比值比1.66,95%置信区间1.14 - 2.40,伤害需治疗人数9.8,95%置信区间5.4 - 42.9)。“非典型”抗抑郁药米安色林导致的脱落率显著低于安慰剂。只有2项研究使用了旨在测量对功能和生活质量影响的数字量表;在HIV患者中(卡诺夫斯基量表),药物治疗优于不治疗;在肺部疾病患者中(疾病影响量表),药物治疗与安慰剂无显著差异。只有7项研究报告了观察身体疾病的变化。与安慰剂(2项研究)或不治疗(1项研究)相比,抗抑郁药对HIV患者的免疫功能没有影响。与安慰剂相比,抗抑郁药对心脏病患者的心血管功能、肺部疾病患者的呼吸功能以及癌症患者的生命体征或实验室检查均无影响(每项1项研究)。去甲替林对糖尿病的控制效果更差。注意到三环类抗抑郁药比SSRI更有效,但也更可能导致脱落的趋势,但这些是基于试验间的非随机比较。
该综述提供的证据表明,与安慰剂或不治疗相比,抗抑郁药能显著更频繁地使患有多种身体疾病的患者的抑郁症得到改善。大约需要4名患者接受抗抑郁药治疗才能使1名患者从抑郁症中康复,而如果给予安慰剂则不会康复(需治疗人数4.2,95%置信区间3.2 - 6.4)。抗抑郁药似乎对患者来说是相当可接受的,因为大约需要10名患者接受抗抑郁药治疗才会导致1名患者脱落,而如果给予安慰剂则不会脱落(伤害需治疗人数9.8,95%置信区间5.4 - 42.9)。除了2项癌症试验外,各试验的证据是一致的,在这2项试验中,“非典型”抗抑郁药米安色林导致的脱落率显著低于安慰剂。注意到三环类抗抑郁药比SSRI更有效,但也更可能导致脱落的趋势,但这些是基于试验间的非随机比较。证据存在的问题包括大多数试验由观察者而非患者来判定改善情况,并且主要关注症状而非功能和生活质量。也有可能存在未被发现的阴性试验。然而,该综述提供的证据表明,对于同时患有身体疾病和抑郁症的患者,至少应考虑使用抗抑郁药。关于诊断,存在一种廉价且易于获得的抑郁症治疗方法,这应促使对身体疾病患者持续的情绪低落进行详细评估。