Robinson Robert G, Jorge Ricardo E, Moser David J, Acion Laura, Solodkin Ana, Small Steven L, Fonzetti Pasquale, Hegel Mark, Arndt Stephan
Department of Psychiatry, Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA.
JAMA. 2008 May 28;299(20):2391-400. doi: 10.1001/jama.299.20.2391.
Depression occurs in more than half of patients who have experienced a stroke. Poststroke depression has been shown in numerous studies to be associated with both impaired recovery in activities of daily living and increased mortality. Prevention of depression thus represents a potentially important goal.
To determine whether treatment with escitalopram or problem-solving therapy over the first year following acute stroke will decrease the number of depression cases that develop compared with placebo medication.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A multisite randomized controlled trial for prevention of depression among 176 nondepressed patients was conducted within 3 months following acute stroke from July 9, 2003, to October 1, 2007. The 12-month trial included 3 groups: a double-blind placebo-controlled comparison of escitalopram (n = 59) with placebo (n = 58), and a nonblinded problem-solving therapy group (n = 59).
The main outcome measure was the development of major or minor poststroke depression based on symptoms elicited by the Structured Clinical Interview for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) (DSM-IV) and the diagnostic criteria from DSM-IV for depression due to stroke with major depressive-like episode or minor depression (ie, research criteria).
Patients who received placebo were significantly more likely to develop depression than individuals who received escitalopram (11 major and 2 minor cases of depression [22.4%] vs 3 major and 2 minor cases of depression [8.5%], adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 4.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.4-8.2; P < .001) and also more likely than individuals who received problem-solving therapy (5 major and 2 minor cases of depression [11.9%], adjusted HR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.4-3.5; P < .001). These results were adjusted for history of mood disorders and remained significant after considering possible confounders such as age, sex, treatment site, and severity of impairment in the model. Using an intention-to-treat conservative method of analyzing the data, which assumed that all 27 patients who did not start randomized treatment would have developed depression, and controlling for prior history of mood disorders, escitalopram was superior to placebo (23.1% vs 34.5%; adjusted HR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.2-3.9; P = .007), while problem-solving therapy was not significantly better than placebo (30.5% vs 34.5%; adjusted HR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.8-1.5; P = .51). Adverse events, including all-cause hospitalizations, nausea, and adverse effects associated with escitalopram were not significantly different between the 3 groups.
In this study of nondepressed patients with recent stroke, the use of escitalopram or problem-solving therapy resulted in a significantly lower incidence of depression over 12 months of treatment compared with placebo, but problem-solving therapy did not achieve significant results over placebo using the intention-to-treat conservative method of analysis.
clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00071643.
超过半数的中风患者会出现抑郁。大量研究表明,中风后抑郁与日常生活活动能力恢复受损及死亡率增加均有关联。因此,预防抑郁是一个潜在的重要目标。
确定在急性中风后的第一年,与安慰剂相比,使用艾司西酞普兰或解决问题疗法是否会减少抑郁病例的发生。
设计、地点和参与者:2003年7月9日至2007年10月1日期间,对176名无抑郁的患者进行了一项预防抑郁的多中心随机对照试验,该试验在急性中风后3个月内进行。为期12个月的试验包括3组:艾司西酞普兰(n = 59)与安慰剂(n = 58)的双盲安慰剂对照比较,以及一个非盲的解决问题疗法组(n = 59)。
主要结局指标是根据《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》(第四版)(DSM-IV)结构化临床访谈引出的症状以及DSM-IV中因中风伴重度抑郁样发作或轻度抑郁(即研究标准)导致的抑郁诊断标准,判断是否发生重度或轻度中风后抑郁。
接受安慰剂的患者比接受艾司西酞普兰的患者更易发生抑郁(11例重度和2例轻度抑郁病例[22.4%] vs 3例重度和2例轻度抑郁病例[8.5%],调整后的风险比[HR]为4.5;95%置信区间[CI]为2.4 - 8.2;P <.001),也比接受解决问题疗法的患者更易发生抑郁(5例重度和2例轻度抑郁病例[11.9%],调整后的HR为2.2;95% CI为1.4 - 3.5;P <.001)。这些结果针对情绪障碍病史进行了调整,并且在模型中考虑了年龄、性别、治疗地点和损伤严重程度等可能的混杂因素后仍然显著。采用意向性分析的保守方法分析数据,即假设所有27名未开始随机治疗的患者都会发生抑郁,并控制情绪障碍的既往史,艾司西酞普兰优于安慰剂(23.1% vs 34.5%;调整后的HR为2.2;95% CI为1.2 - 3.9;P =.007),而解决问题疗法并不比安慰剂显著更好(30.5% vs 34.5%;调整后的HR为1.1;95% CI为0.8 - 1.5;P =.51)。3组之间的不良事件,包括全因住院、恶心以及与艾司西酞普兰相关的不良反应,差异均无统计学意义。
在这项针对近期中风的无抑郁患者的研究中,与安慰剂相比,使用艾司西酞普兰或解决问题疗法在12个月的治疗期间抑郁发生率显著降低,但采用意向性分析的保守方法分析时,解决问题疗法与安慰剂相比未取得显著效果。
clinicaltrials.gov标识符:NCT00071643。