van Zoonen Kim, Buntrock Claudia, Ebert David Daniel, Smit Filip, Reynolds Charles F, Beekman Aartjan T F, Cuijpers Pim
Department of Clinical Psychology and EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Leuphana University Innovation Incubator, Division Health Trainings Online, Lüneburg, Germany, Philips University, Department of Psychology, Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Marburg, Germany, Trimbos Institute (Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction), Utrecht, The Netherlands, Department of Epidemiology and Biostastics, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA and Department of Psychiatry and EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Int J Epidemiol. 2014 Apr;43(2):318-29. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyt175.
Depressive disorders are highly prevalent, have a detrimental impact on the quality of life of patients and their relatives and are associated with increased mortality rates, high levels of service use and substantial economic costs. Current treatments are estimated to only reduce about one-third of the disease burden of depressive disorders. Prevention may be an alternative strategy to further reduce the disease burden of depression.
We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials examining the effects of preventive interventions in participants with no diagnosed depression at baseline on the incidence of diagnosed depressive disorders at follow-up. We identified 32 studies that met our inclusion criteria.
We found that the relative risk of developing a depressive disorder was incidence rate ratio = 0.79 (95% confidence interval: 0.69-0.91), indicating a 21% decrease in incidence in prevention groups in comparison with control groups. Heterogeneity was low (I(2) = 24%). The number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one new case of depressive disorder was 20. Sensitivity analyses revealed no differences between type of prevention (e.g. selective, indicated or universal) nor between type of intervention (e.g. cognitive behavioural therapy, interpersonal psychotherapy or other). However, data on NNT did show differences.
Prevention of depression seems feasible and may, in addition to treatment, be an effective way to delay or prevent the onset of depressive disorders. Preventing or delaying these disorders may contribute to the further reduction of the disease burden and the economic costs associated with depressive disorders.
抑郁症极为常见,对患者及其亲属的生活质量产生不利影响,且与死亡率上升、高服务使用率及巨大经济成本相关。据估计,当前治疗方法仅能减轻约三分之一的抑郁症疾病负担。预防可能是进一步减轻抑郁症疾病负担的另一种策略。
我们对随机对照试验进行了荟萃分析,这些试验考察了基线时未诊断出抑郁症的参与者中预防性干预措施对随访时抑郁症诊断发病率的影响。我们确定了32项符合纳入标准的研究。
我们发现患抑郁症的相对风险为发病率比 = 0.79(95%置信区间:0.69 - 0.91),这表明与对照组相比,预防组的发病率降低了21%。异质性较低(I(2) = 24%)。预防一例新的抑郁症病例所需的治疗人数(NNT)为20。敏感性分析显示,预防类型(如选择性、针对性或普遍性预防)之间以及干预类型(如认知行为疗法、人际心理治疗或其他)之间均无差异。然而,关于NNT的数据确实显示出差异。
抑郁症预防似乎可行,除治疗外,可能是延迟或预防抑郁症发作的有效方法。预防或延迟这些疾病可能有助于进一步减轻疾病负担以及与抑郁症相关的经济成本。