Talamo Alessandra, Baldessarini Ross J, Centorrino Franca
Department of Psychiatry and Neuroscience Program, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Hum Psychopharmacol. 2008 Aug;23(6):447-54. doi: 10.1002/hup.952.
It remains uncertain whether bipolar disorder (BPD) patients in randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) are sufficiently representative of clinically encountered patients as to guide clinical-therapeutic practice. We complied inclusion/exclusion criteria by frequency from reports of 21 RCTs for mania, and applied them in a pilot study of patients hospitalized for DSM-IV BPD manic/mixed states to compare characteristics and clinical responses of patients who did versus did not meet exclusion criteria. From 27 initially identified inclusion/exclusion criteria ranked by citation frequency, we derived six inclusion, and 10 non-redundant-exclusion factors. Of 67 consecutive patients meeting inclusion criteria, 15 (22.4%) potential "research subjects" met all 10 exclusion criteria. The remaining 52 "clinical patients" differed markedly on exclusion criteria, including more psychiatric co-morbidity, substance abuse, involuntary hospitalization, and suicide attempts or violence, but were otherwise similar. In both groups responses to clinically determined inpatient treatments were similar, including improvement in mania ratings. Based on applying reported inclusion/exclusion criteria for RCTs to a pilot sample of hospitalized-manic patients, those likely to be included in modern RCTs were similar to patients who would be excluded, most notably in short-term antimanic-treatment responses. The findings encourage further comparisons of subjects included/excluded from RCTs to test potential clinical generalizability of research findings. The pilot study is limited in numbers and exposure times with which to test for the minor differences between "research subjects" and "clinical patients."
在随机对照试验(RCT)中,双相情感障碍(BPD)患者是否足以代表临床中遇到的患者以指导临床治疗实践仍不确定。我们根据21项关于躁狂症的RCT报告中的出现频率整理了纳入/排除标准,并将其应用于一项针对因DSM-IV BPD躁狂/混合状态住院患者的初步研究,以比较符合与不符合排除标准的患者的特征和临床反应。从最初按引用频率排序的27项纳入/排除标准中,我们得出了6项纳入因素和10项非冗余排除因素。在连续67名符合纳入标准的患者中,15名(22.4%)潜在的“研究对象”符合所有10项排除标准。其余52名“临床患者”在排除标准方面有显著差异,包括更多的精神共病、药物滥用、非自愿住院以及自杀未遂或暴力行为,但在其他方面相似。两组对临床确定的住院治疗的反应相似,包括躁狂评分的改善。基于将报告的RCT纳入/排除标准应用于住院躁狂患者的试点样本,那些可能被纳入现代RCT的患者与被排除的患者相似,最明显的是在短期抗躁狂治疗反应方面。这些发现鼓励进一步比较RCT中纳入/排除的受试者,以测试研究结果的潜在临床普遍性。该试点研究在数量和暴露时间方面有限,无法测试“研究对象”和“临床患者”之间的微小差异。