Amsterdam Jay D, Wang Chia-Hao, Shwarz Michelle, Shults Justine
Depression Research Unit, Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
J Affect Disord. 2009 Jan;112(1-3):219-30. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2008.03.029. Epub 2008 May 16.
There is a paucity of controlled clinical data on the best initial therapy for treating patients with bipolar type II (BP II) major depressive episode (MDE). In this analysis, we examined the safety and antidepressant efficacy of short-term venlafaxine versus lithium monotherapy in rapid and non-rapid cycling patients with BP II MDE. We hypothesized that lithium would have superior efficacy to venlafaxine, with fewer syndromal and sub-syndromal hypomanic and mixed mood conversions in the rapid cycling BP II MDE patients.
Patients were randomized to monotherapy with either venlafaxine 37.5-375 mg daily or lithium 300-2100 mg daily for 12 weeks. The primary outcome measure was the 28-item Hamilton Depression Rating (HAM-D 28), with embedded 'typical' HAM-D 17 and 'atypical' HAM-D 17-R symptom scores. Secondary outcomes included the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), clinical global impressions severity (CGI/S) and change (CGI/C) ratings, the proportion of responders (with > or =50% reduction in baseline HAM-D score) and remitters (with a final HAM-D score </=8), and the proportion of patients with syndromal and sub-syndromal mood conversions.
Forty-three patients received venlafaxine (12 rapid cycling) and 40 patients received lithium (15 rapid cycling): 48 (57.8%) were women and 69 (82.1%) were Caucasian. Thirty-three patients (39.8%) prematurely discontinued therapy: 11 for lack of efficacy, 13 for adverse events, 2 for non-compliance, and 7 who were lost to follow up. Venlafaxine produced a greater reduction in HAM-D 28 (p=0.001) and HAM-D 17 (p=0.002) scores (versus lithium) that was independent of cycling status (0.358). Venlafaxine also resulted in a higher rate of responders (p=0.021) and remitters (p=0.001) in rapid cycling patients. There was no significant difference in baseline mean YMRS scores, or mean YMRS change scores over time, between rapid and non-rapid cycling patients. Venlafaxine did not result in a higher proportion of mood conversions (versus lithium) in either the rapid or non-rapid cycling patients.
This was a secondary analysis of rapid versus non-rapid cycling BP II MDE patients. The study was originally powered to detect differences in efficacy between treatment conditions, and was not specifically powered to detect differences in efficacy or mood conversion episodes between rapid and non-rapid cycling groups. We used a conservative life-time definition of rapid cycling (i.e., an average > or =4 affective episodes per year). We did not employ a patient-recorded daily chrono-record to identify ultra-short mood conversions. The study used a randomized, parallel group, open-label design.
These observations from this exploratory analysis suggest that venlafaxine monotherapy may be more effective than lithium monotherapy, with a similar mood conversion rate, in rapid and non-rapid cycling patients with BP II MDE. These data support prior observations that venlafaxine monotherapy may be effective initial treatment for BP II MDE.
关于双相II型障碍(BP II)重度抑郁发作(MDE)患者最佳初始治疗方案的对照临床数据较少。在本分析中,我们比较了短期使用文拉法辛与锂盐单药治疗BP II MDE快速循环和非快速循环患者的安全性及抗抑郁疗效。我们假设锂盐的疗效优于文拉法辛,且在BP II MDE快速循环患者中,其导致综合征性及亚综合征性轻躁狂和混合情绪转换的情况更少。
患者被随机分为两组,分别接受每日37.5 - 375 mg文拉法辛或每日300 - 2100 mg锂盐的单药治疗,为期12周。主要结局指标为28项汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAM - D 28),其中包含“典型”的HAM - D 17和“非典型”的HAM - D 17 - R症状评分。次要结局指标包括杨氏躁狂量表(YMRS)、临床总体印象严重程度(CGI/S)和变化(CGI/C)评分、缓解者(基线HAM - D评分降低≥50%)和痊愈者(最终HAM - D评分≤8)的比例,以及综合征性和亚综合征性情绪转换患者的比例。
43例患者接受文拉法辛治疗(12例为快速循环型),40例患者接受锂盐治疗(15例为快速循环型);48例(57.8%)为女性,69例(82.1%)为白种人。33例患者(39.8%)提前终止治疗:11例因疗效不佳,13例因不良事件,2例因依从性差,7例失访。与锂盐相比,文拉法辛使HAM - D 28(p = 0.001)和HAM - D 17(p = 0.002)评分降低幅度更大,且与循环状态无关(0.358)。在快速循环患者中,文拉法辛还使缓解者(p = 0.021)和痊愈者(p = 0.001)比例更高。快速循环和非快速循环患者的基线平均YMRS评分及随时间的平均YMRS变化评分无显著差异。在快速循环和非快速循环患者中,文拉法辛导致情绪转换的比例均未高于锂盐。
这是对BP II MDE快速循环和非快速循环患者的二次分析。该研究最初旨在检测不同治疗条件下疗效的差异,并非专门检测快速循环和非快速循环组之间疗效或情绪转换发作的差异。我们采用了保守的终生快速循环定义(即平均每年≥4次情感发作)。我们未采用患者记录的每日时间记录来识别超短情绪转换。该研究采用了随机、平行组、开放标签设计。
这项探索性分析的结果表明,在BP II MDE快速循环和非快速循环患者中,文拉法辛单药治疗可能比锂盐单药治疗更有效,且情绪转换率相似。这些数据支持了之前的观察结果,即文拉法辛单药治疗可能是BP II MDE有效的初始治疗方法。