Maguire Melissa J, Weston Jennifer, Singh Jasvinder, Marson Anthony G
Department of Neurology, Leeds General Infirmary, Great George Street, Leeds, UK.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Dec 3;2014(12):CD010682. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010682.pub2.
Depressive disorders are the most common psychiatric comorbidity in patients with epilepsy, affecting around one-third, with a significant negative impact on quality of life. There is concern that patients may not be receiving appropriate treatment for their depression because of uncertainty regarding which antidepressant or class works best and the perceived risk of exacerbating seizures. This review aims to address these issues and inform clinical practice and future research.
We aimed to review and synthesise evidence from randomised controlled trials of antidepressants and prospective non-randomised studies of antidepressants used for treating depression in patients with epilepsy. The primary objectives were to evaluate the efficacy and safety of antidepressants in treating depressive symptoms and the effect on seizure recurrence.
We conducted a search of the following databases: the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2014, Issue 5), MEDLINE (Ovid), SCOPUS, PsycINFO, www.clinicaltrials.gov and conference proceedings, including studies published up to 31 May 2014. There were no language restrictions.
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective non-randomised cohort controlled and uncontrolled studies investigating children or adults with epilepsy treated with an antidepressant for depressive symptoms. The intervention group consisted of patients receiving an antidepressant drug in addition to an existing antiepileptic drug regimen. The control group(s) consisted of patients receiving a placebo, comparative antidepressant, psychotherapy or no treatment in addition to an existing antiepileptic drug regimen.
We extracted data on trial design factors, patient demographics and outcomes for each study. The primary outcomes were changes in depression scores (proportion with a greater than 50% improvement or mean difference) and change in seizure frequency (mean difference or proportion with a seizure recurrence or episode of status epilepticus, or both). Secondary outcomes included the number of patients withdrawing from the study and reasons for withdrawal, as well as any adverse events. Two authors undertook data extraction separately for each included study. We then cross-checked the data extraction. We assessed risk of bias using a version of the extended Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias in both randomised and non-randomised studies. We presented binary outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We presented continuous outcomes as standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs, and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs. If possible we intended to use meta-regression techniques to investigate possible sources of heterogeneity however this was not possible due to lack of data.
We included in the review eight studies (three RCTs and five prospective cohort studies) including 471 patients with epilepsy treated with an antidepressant. The RCTs were all single-centre studies comparing an antidepressant versus active control, placebo or no treatment. The five non-randomised prospective cohort studies reported on outcomes mainly in patients with partial epilepsy treated for depression with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI). We rated all the RCTs and one prospective cohort study as having unclear risk of bias. We rated the four other prospective cohort studies as having high risk of bias. We were unable to perform any meta-analysis for the proportion with a greater than 50% improvement in depression scores because the studies reported on different treatment comparisons. The results are presented descriptively and show a varied responder rate of between 24% and 97%, depending on the antidepressant given. For the mean difference in depression score we were able to perform a limited meta-analysis of two prospective cohort studies of citalopram, including a total of 88 patients. This gave low quality evidence for the effect estimate of 1.17 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.38) in depression scores. Seizure frequency data were not reported in any RCTs and we were unable to perform any meta-analysis for prospective cohort studies due to the different treatment comparisons. The results are presented descriptively and show that treatment in three studies with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor did not significantly increase seizure frequency. Patients given an antidepressant were more likely to withdraw due to adverse events than inefficacy. Reported adverse events for SSRIs included nausea, dizziness, sedation, gastrointestinal disturbance and sexual dysfunction. Across three comparisons we rated the evidence as moderate quality due to the small sizes of the contributing studies and only one study each contributing to the comparisons. We rated the evidence for the final comparison as low quality as there was concern over the study methods in the two contributing studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Existing evidence on the effectiveness of antidepressants in treating depressive symptoms associated with epilepsy is very limited. Only one small RCT demonstrated a statistically significant effect of venlafaxine on depressive symptoms. We have no high quality evidence to inform the choice of antidepressant drug or class of drug in treating depression in people with epilepsy. This review provides low quality evidence of safety in terms of seizure exacerbation with SSRIs, but there are no available comparative data on antidepressant classes and safety in relation to seizures. There are currently no comparative data on antidepressants and psychotherapy in treating depression in epilepsy, although psychotherapy could be considered in patients unwilling to take antidepressants or where there are unacceptable side effects. Further comparative clinical trials of antidepressants and psychotherapy in large cohorts of patients with epilepsy and depression are required to better inform treatment policy in the future.
抑郁症是癫痫患者中最常见的精神共病,约三分之一的患者受其影响,对生活质量有显著负面影响。人们担心,由于不确定哪种抗抑郁药或药物类别效果最佳以及认为存在癫痫发作加剧的风险,患者可能未得到针对其抑郁症的适当治疗。本综述旨在解决这些问题,并为临床实践和未来研究提供参考。
我们旨在回顾和综合抗抑郁药随机对照试验以及用于治疗癫痫患者抑郁症的抗抑郁药前瞻性非随机研究的证据。主要目的是评估抗抑郁药治疗抑郁症状的疗效和安全性以及对癫痫复发的影响。
我们检索了以下数据库:Cochrane癫痫小组专业注册库;Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL 2014年第5期)、MEDLINE(Ovid)、SCOPUS、PsycINFO、www.clinicaltrials.gov以及会议论文集,包括截至2014年5月31日发表的研究。无语言限制。
我们纳入了随机对照试验(RCT)以及前瞻性非随机队列对照和非对照研究,这些研究调查了使用抗抑郁药治疗抑郁症状的儿童或成人癫痫患者。干预组由除现有抗癫痫药物治疗方案外还接受抗抑郁药的患者组成。对照组由除现有抗癫痫药物治疗方案外还接受安慰剂、对照抗抑郁药、心理治疗或未接受治疗的患者组成。
我们提取了每项研究的试验设计因素、患者人口统计学数据和结局数据。主要结局是抑郁评分的变化(改善大于50%的比例或均值差)以及癫痫发作频率的变化(均值差或癫痫复发或癫痫持续状态发作或两者的比例)。次要结局包括退出研究的患者数量和退出原因,以及任何不良事件。两位作者分别对每项纳入研究进行数据提取。然后我们对数据提取进行了交叉核对。我们使用扩展的Cochrane协作工具版本评估随机和非随机研究中的偏倚风险。我们将二元结局表示为具有95%置信区间(CI)的风险比(RR)。我们将连续结局表示为具有95%CI的标准化均值差(SMD)和具有95%CI的均值差(MD)。如果可能,我们打算使用元回归技术调查异质性的可能来源,但由于缺乏数据而无法做到。
我们在综述中纳入了八项研究(三项RCT和五项前瞻性队列研究),包括471例接受抗抑郁药治疗的癫痫患者。RCT均为单中心研究,比较了抗抑郁药与活性对照、安慰剂或未治疗。五项非随机前瞻性队列研究主要报告了使用选择性5-羟色胺再摄取抑制剂(SSRI)治疗抑郁症的部分癫痫患者的结局。我们将所有RCT和一项前瞻性队列研究评为偏倚风险不明确。我们将其他四项前瞻性队列研究评为高偏倚风险。由于研究报告的治疗比较不同,我们无法对抑郁评分改善大于50%的比例进行任何荟萃分析。结果以描述性方式呈现,显示根据所给予的抗抑郁药不同,有效率在24%至97%之间变化。对于抑郁评分的均值差,我们能够对两项西酞普兰前瞻性队列研究进行有限的荟萃分析,共包括88例患者。这为抑郁评分的效应估计值1.17(95%CI 0.96至1.38)提供了低质量证据。任何RCT均未报告癫痫发作频率数据,由于治疗比较不同,我们无法对前瞻性队列研究进行任何荟萃分析。结果以描述性方式呈现,显示三项使用选择性5-羟色胺再摄取抑制剂的研究中治疗未显著增加癫痫发作频率。接受抗抑郁药治疗的患者因不良事件而非无效更有可能退出。报告的SSRI不良事件包括恶心、头晕、镇静、胃肠道紊乱和性功能障碍。在三项比较中,由于纳入研究规模较小且每项比较仅有一项研究参与,我们将证据评为中等质量。我们将最终比较的证据评为低质量,因为对两项参与研究的研究方法存在担忧。
关于抗抑郁药治疗与癫痫相关抑郁症状有效性的现有证据非常有限。仅有一项小型RCT证明文拉法辛对抑郁症状有统计学显著效果。我们没有高质量证据来指导在治疗癫痫患者抑郁症时选择抗抑郁药或药物类别。本综述提供了关于SSRI导致癫痫发作加剧方面安全性的低质量证据,但没有关于抗抑郁药类别与癫痫发作安全性的可用比较数据。目前没有关于抗抑郁药与心理治疗治疗癫痫患者抑郁症的比较数据,尽管对于不愿服用抗抑郁药或存在不可接受副作用的患者可考虑心理治疗。未来需要在大量癫痫和抑郁症患者队列中进行抗抑郁药与心理治疗的进一步比较临床试验,以更好地为治疗策略提供依据。