Department of Health Promotion and Human Behavior, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine/School of Public Health, Kyoto, Japan.
J Affect Disord. 2013 Sep 25;150(3):916-22. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2013.05.015. Epub 2013 May 28.
Several studies have described real-world prescription patterns of first-line antidepressants for depression but little is known about their fate in terms of duration, intensity and changes.
An inception cohort of new onset non-psychotic depression initiating antidepressant treatment with a new generation antidpressive agent was identified in a large health insurance claims database in Japan between 2009 and 2010. The duration and intensity of first-line antidepressants, the timing and kind of second-line antidepressants and the total duration of antidepressant treatment were examined.
We identified 1592 patients. The starting dose and the maximum dose attained with the first-line agent appeared to be largely in line with the guideline recommendations although the latter tended toward the minimum of the recommended range. The continuity of the first-line antidepressant was far below the guideline recommendations, with 28% never returning after the initial prescription and 55% dropping out within 3 months. Of all the first-line antidepressants, 14% were subsequently augmented by another psychotropic agent while 17% were switched to another antidepressant after a median of 3 or 2 months, respectively. The choice of the second-line agents varied extremely widely. The total duration of antidepressant therapy was as short as a median of 4 months, with 68% stopping treatment by 6 months.
The diagnosis of non-psychotic unipolar depression in the claims database analyses remains approximate.
The current guidelines are grossly out of touch with the clinical realities. On the one hand, guidelines need to reflect the real-world practices; on the other hand clinicians should limit their treatment options and allow evidence-based comparative effectiveness research among them so that patients shall no longer be given less effective and more effective treatments without being able to distinguish among them.
已有多项研究描述了一线抗抑郁药治疗抑郁症的实际处方模式,但对于其持续时间、强度和变化,人们知之甚少。
本研究在日本的一个大型健康保险索赔数据库中,于 2009 年至 2010 年期间,确定了一个新发病非精神病性抑郁症患者的起始队列,这些患者开始使用新一代抗抑郁药进行抗抑郁治疗。本研究调查了一线抗抑郁药的持续时间和强度、二线抗抑郁药的时机和种类以及抗抑郁治疗的总持续时间。
本研究共纳入 1592 例患者。一线药物的起始剂量和最大剂量似乎与指南建议基本一致,尽管后者倾向于达到推荐范围的最低值。一线抗抑郁药的连续性远低于指南建议,28%的患者在初始处方后从未再次就诊,55%的患者在 3 个月内停药。在所有一线抗抑郁药中,有 14%的患者随后加用另一种精神药物,17%的患者在 3 或 2 个月后分别换用另一种抗抑郁药。二线药物的选择差异极大。抗抑郁治疗的总持续时间仅为 4 个月中位数,68%的患者在 6 个月内停止治疗。
在索赔数据库分析中,非精神病性单相抑郁症的诊断仍不准确。
目前的指南严重脱离了临床实际。一方面,指南需要反映真实世界的实践;另一方面,临床医生应限制他们的治疗选择,并允许对它们进行基于证据的比较有效性研究,以便患者不再接受无效和更有效的治疗,而无法区分它们。