Eshun-Wilson Ingrid, Siegfried Nandi, Akena Dickens H, Stein Dan J, Obuku Ekwaro A, Joska John A
Centre for Evidence Based Health Care, Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Global Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Francie van Zyl Drive, Tygerberg, 7505, Parow, Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa, 7505.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jan 22;1(1):CD008525. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008525.pub3.
BACKGROUND: Rates of major depression among people living with HIV (PLWH) are substantially higher than those seen in the general population and this may adversely affect antiretroviral treatment outcomes. Several unique clinical and psychosocial factors may contribute to the development and persistence of depression in PLWH. Given these influences, it is unclear if antidepressant therapy is as effective for PLWH as the general population. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of antidepressant therapy for treatment of depression in PLWH. SEARCH METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group's specialised register (CCMD-CTR), the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase and ran a cited reference search on the Web of Science for reports of all included studies. We conducted additional searches of the international trial registers including; ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization Trials Portal (ICTRP), and the HIV and AIDS - Clinical trials register. We searched grey literature and reference lists to identify additional studies and contacted authors to obtain missing data. We applied no restrictions on date, language or publication status to the searches, which included studies conducted between 1 January 1980 and 18 April 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials of antidepressant drug therapy compared to placebo or another antidepressant drug class. Participants eligible for inclusion had to be aged 18 years and older, from any setting, and have both HIV and depression. Depression was defined according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or International Statistical Classification of Diseases criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria and extracted data. We presented categorical outcomes as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Continuous outcomes were presented mean (MD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) with standard deviations (SD). We assessed quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 studies with 709 participants in this review. Of the 10 studies, eight were conducted in high income countries (USA and Italy), seven were conducted prior to 2000 and seven had predominantly men. Seven studies assessed antidepressants versus placebo, two compared different antidepressant classes and one had three arms comparing two antidepressant classes with placebo.Antidepressant therapy may result in a greater improvement in depression compared to placebo. There was a moderate improvement in depression when assessed with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) score as a continuous outcome (SMD 0.59, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.96; participants = 357; studies = 6; I = 62%, low quality evidence). However, there was no evidence of improvement when this was assessed with HAM-D score as a dichotomized outcome (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.35; participants = 434; studies = 5; I = 0%, low quality evidence) or Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I) score (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.77; participants = 346; studies = 4; I = 29%, low quality evidence). There was little to no difference in the proportion of study dropouts between study arms (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.80; participants = 306; studies = 4; I = 0%, moderate quality evidence).The methods of reporting adverse events varied substantially between studies, this resulted in very low quality evidence contributing to a pooled estimate (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.21; participants = 167; studies = 2; I = 34%; very low quality evidence). Based on this, we were unable to determine if there was a difference in the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events in the antidepressant versus placebo arms. However, sexual dysfunction was reported commonly in people receiving selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). People receiving tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) frequently reported anticholinergic adverse effects such as dry mouth and constipation. There were no reported grade 3 or 4 adverse events in any study group.There was no evidence of a difference in follow-up CD4 count at study termination (MD -6.31 cells/mm, 95% CI -72.76 to 60.14; participants = 176; studies = 3; I = 0%; low quality evidence). Only one study evaluated quality of life score (MD 3.60, 95% CI -0.38 to 7.58; participants = 87; studies = 1; very low quality evidence), due to the poor quality evidence we could not draw conclusions for this outcome.There were few studies comparing different antidepressant classes. We are uncertain if SSRIs differ from TCAs with regard to improvement in depression as evaluated by HAM-D score (MD -3.20, 95% CI -10.87 to 4.47; participants = 14; studies = 1; very low quality evidence). There was some evidence that mirtazapine resulted in a greater improvement in depression compared to an SSRI (MD 9.00, 95% CI 3.61 to 14.39; participants = 70; studies = 1; low quality evidence); however, this finding was not consistent for all measures of improvement in depression for this comparison.No studies reported on virological suppression or any other HIV specific outcomes.The studies included in this review had an overall unclear or high risk of bias due to under-reporting of study methods, high risk of attrition bias and inadequate sequence generation methods. Heterogeneity between studies and the limited number of participants, and events lead to downgrading of the quality of the evidence for several outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrates that antidepressant therapy may be more beneficial than placebo for the treatment of depression in PLWH. The low quality of the evidence contributing to this assessment and the lack of studies representing PLWH from generalized epidemics in low- to middle-income countries make the relevance of these finding in today's context limited. Future studies that evaluate the effectiveness of antidepressant therapy should be designed and conducted rigorously. Such studies should incorporate evaluation of stepped care models and health system strengthening interventions in the study design. In addition, outcomes related to HIV care and antiretroviral therapy should be reported.
背景:艾滋病病毒感染者(PLWH)中重度抑郁症的发病率显著高于普通人群,这可能会对抗逆转录病毒治疗的效果产生不利影响。一些独特的临床和社会心理因素可能导致PLWH抑郁症的发生和持续存在。鉴于这些影响,尚不清楚抗抑郁治疗对PLWH是否与普通人群一样有效。 目的:评估抗抑郁治疗对PLWH抑郁症的疗效。 检索方法:我们检索了Cochrane常见精神障碍组的专业注册库(CCMD-CTR)、Cochrane图书馆、PubMed、Embase,并在Web of Science上进行了引用文献检索,以查找所有纳入研究的报告。我们还对国际试验注册库进行了额外检索,包括ClinicalTrials.gov、世界卫生组织试验注册平台(ICTRP)以及HIV和艾滋病临床试验注册库。我们检索了灰色文献和参考文献列表以识别其他研究,并联系作者获取缺失数据。我们对检索没有设置日期、语言或出版状态的限制,检索范围包括1980年1月1日至2017年4月18日期间进行的研究。 入选标准:我们纳入了与安慰剂或其他抗抑郁药物类别相比的抗抑郁药物治疗的随机对照试验。符合纳入条件的参与者年龄必须在18岁及以上,来自任何环境,并且同时患有HIV和抑郁症。抑郁症根据《精神障碍诊断与统计手册》或《国际疾病分类》标准进行定义。 数据收集与分析:两位综述作者独立应用纳入标准并提取数据。我们将分类结果表示为风险比(RR)和95%置信区间(CI)。连续结果表示为均值(MD)或标准化均值差(SMD)及标准差(SD)。我们使用GRADE方法评估证据质量。 主要结果:本综述纳入了10项研究,共709名参与者。在这10项研究中,8项在高收入国家(美国和意大利)进行,7项在2000年之前进行,7项主要针对男性。7项研究评估了抗抑郁药与安慰剂的对比,2项比较了不同抗抑郁药物类别,1项有三个组,比较了两种抗抑郁药物类别与安慰剂。与安慰剂相比,抗抑郁治疗可能会使抑郁症有更大改善。以汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAM-D)评分作为连续结果评估时,抑郁症有中度改善(SMD 0.59,95% CI 0.21至0.96;参与者 = 357;研究 = 6;I² = 62%,低质量证据)。然而,以HAM-D评分作为二分结果评估(RR 1.10,95% CI 0.89至1.35;参与者 = 434;研究 = 5;I² = 0%,低质量证据)或临床总体改善印象(CGI-I)评分(RR 1.28,95% CI 0.93至1.77;参与者 = 346;研究 = 4;I² = 29%,低质量证据)时,没有改善的证据。研究组之间的研究退出比例几乎没有差异(RR 1.28,95% CI 0.91至1.80;参与者 = 306;研究 = 4;I² = 0%,中等质量证据)。研究报告不良事件的方法差异很大,这导致用于汇总估计的证据质量非常低(RR 0.88,95% CI 0.64至1.21;参与者 = 167;研究 = 2;I² = 34%;非常低质量证据)。基于此,我们无法确定抗抑郁药组与安慰剂组中经历不良事件的参与者比例是否存在差异。然而,接受选择性5-羟色胺再摄取抑制剂(SSRIs)的人常报告性功能障碍。接受三环类抗抑郁药(TCAs)的人经常报告抗胆碱能不良反应,如口干和便秘。任何研究组均未报告3级或4级不良事件。在研究结束时,随访的CD4细胞计数没有差异的证据(MD -6.31个细胞/mm³,95% CI -72.76至60.14;参与者 = 176;研究 = 3;I² = 0%;低质量证据)。只有一项研究评估了生活质量评分(MD 3.60,95% CI -0.38至7.58;参与者 = 87;研究 = 1;非常低质量证据),由于证据质量差,我们无法就此结果得出结论。比较不同抗抑郁药物类别的研究很少。我们不确定就HAM-D评分评估的抑郁症改善而言,SSRIs与TCAs是否存在差异(MD -3.20,95% CI -10.87至4.47;参与者 = 14;研究 = 1;非常低质量证据)。有一些证据表明,与SSRI相比,米氮平可使抑郁症有更大改善(MD 9.00,95% CI 3.61至14.39;参与者 = 70;研究 = 1;低质量证据);然而,对于该比较中抑郁症改善的所有测量指标,这一发现并不一致。没有研究报告病毒学抑制或任何其他HIV特异性结果。由于研究方法报告不足、失访偏倚风险高以及序列生成方法不充分,本综述纳入的研究总体存在不明确或高偏倚风险。研究之间的异质性以及参与者和事件数量有限导致几个结果的证据质量降级。 作者结论:本综述表明,抗抑郁治疗对PLWH抑郁症的治疗可能比安慰剂更有益。导致这一评估的证据质量较低,且缺乏代表中低收入国家普遍流行情况的PLWH研究,使得这些发现在当今背景下的相关性有限。未来评估抗抑郁治疗有效性的研究应进行严格设计和实施。此类研究应在研究设计中纳入对分步护理模式和卫生系统强化干预措施的评估。此外,应报告与HIV护理和抗逆转录病毒治疗相关的结果。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-1-22
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025-3-10
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-4-23
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-5-14
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-4-24
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-2-6
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-4-5
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-6-8
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-5-14
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021-9-14
Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2022-10
Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2022-4
Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2020-8
Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2016
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2016-1-1
Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2015-1
Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2014-12
Soc Sci Med. 2014-11