Clinical Research Physician Neuroscience, Medical Department, Eli Lilly and Company, Madrid, Spain.
J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2012 Aug;32(4):479-86. doi: 10.1097/JCP.0b013e31825d9958.
Antidepressant switch is a commonly used strategy in the absence of an adequate response, but optimum timing is not well established. We compared the efficacy of an early and a conventional antidepressant switch strategy in patients with major depressive disorder.
Patients with no or minimal improvement (<30% reduction in baseline 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HAMD17] score) after 4 weeks on escitalopram 10 mg/d were randomized to either early switch strategy with duloxetine 60 to 120 mg/d for 12 weeks (arm A) or conventional switch strategy (arm B): 4 further weeks on escitalopram 10 to 20 mg/d; then, in case of nonresponse (response, ≥ 50% reduction in HAMD17), switch to duloxetine 60 to 120 mg/d for 8 weeks, or continued escitalopram in responders. Co-primary end points were time to confirmed response and remission (HAMD17, ≤ 7). Strategies were compared using Kaplan-Meier, logistic regression, and repeated-measures analyses.
Sixty-seven percent (566 of 840) of patients showed no or minimal improvement and were randomized to arm A (282 patients) or arm B (284 patients). No between-strategy differences in time to confirmed response (25% Kaplan-Meier estimates, 3.9 vs 4.0 weeks, P = 0.213) or remission (6.0 vs 7.9 weeks, P = 0.075) were found. Rates of confirmed responders were similar (64.9% vs 64.1%); however, more patients randomized to early switch achieved confirmed remission (43.3% vs 35.6%; P = 0.048).
Although no differences in the primary end points were found, a higher remission rate was seen with the early switch strategy. Our findings suggest that further investigations to reevaluate the conventional approach to antidepressant switch strategy would be worthwhile.
在缺乏充分应答的情况下,抗抑郁药转换是一种常用策略,但最佳时机尚未明确。我们比较了在没有应答或应答不足(基线 17 项汉密尔顿抑郁量表[HAMD17]评分降低<30%)的重度抑郁症患者中,早期和常规抗抑郁药转换策略的疗效。
在接受依西酞普兰 10mg/d 治疗 4 周后,无应答或应答不足(HAMD17 评分降低<30%)的患者随机分为早期转换策略组(A 组),即换用度洛西汀 60-120mg/d 治疗 12 周;或常规转换策略组(B 组):依西酞普兰 10-20mg/d 治疗 4 周;如果仍无应答(应答,HAMD17 评分降低≥50%),换用度洛西汀 60-120mg/d 治疗 8 周;或对有应答的患者继续使用依西酞普兰。主要终点是确证应答和缓解时间(HAMD17,≤7)。采用 Kaplan-Meier 分析、logistic 回归分析和重复测量分析比较策略。
840 例患者中有 67%(566 例)无应答或应答不足,被随机分至 A 组(282 例)或 B 组(284 例)。未发现 A 组与 B 组之间的确证应答时间(Kaplan-Meier 估计值,25%,3.9 周 vs. 4.0 周,P=0.213)或缓解时间(6.0 周 vs. 7.9 周,P=0.075)存在差异。确证应答率相似(64.9% vs. 64.1%);然而,更多随机接受早期转换策略的患者确证缓解(43.3% vs. 35.6%;P=0.048)。
虽然主要终点无差异,但早期转换策略的缓解率更高。我们的发现表明,进一步研究重新评估常规抗抑郁药转换策略可能是值得的。